"In cases of particular weight, say, a major commercial crime, or cases which may involve a wider public interest, the papers will be passed to a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and then to the Director personally. The Director will, whenever he considers it appropriate, refer such decisions to me, either to endorse the decision or, in some instances, for me to decide," Mr Mathews said.
On the external safe-guards and checks and balances, Mr Mathews pointed out that first of all, there was the Legislative Council.
"The ability of this Council to question an Attorney General about prosecutorial decisions is a valuable and significant safe-guard.
"Of course, I can understand the frustrations of members when I decline to go into the reasons for a particular decision. Let me say this, 1, too, have experienced frustration in not being able to answer publicly the barrage of criticism, to which I and my Department have been subjected over decisions taken in certain cases. However, there are sound reasons of public policy why an Attorney General cannot discuss his decision to prosecute, or not to prosecute, a particular case," he said.
He emphasised that the only forum in which a person's guilt or innocence should be assessed was in a court of law, where that person had all the safeguards provided by the criminal law to ensure that he or she had a fair trial.
"Any discussion of the correctness of a decision to prosecute, or not to prosecute, a particular person is likely to raise the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, which is just a step away from the question whether he or she was guilty," he said.
He explained that where a decision had been taken not to prosecute a particular case, there were other reasons why an attorney general should not discuss the basis of that decision.
"To make public the grounds on which the evidence was judged to be insufficient to secure the likelihood of a conviction would, in the first place, breach the confidentiality of police reports and statements taken by the police from potential witnesses. Disclosure of the reasons for not believing prospective witnesses might require revealing the criminal record of those witnesses.
"The same reasons would apply to making public details about the defendant with the result that there would be a public "trial" of the potential defendant without his or her having all the safeguards that are an integral part of a criminal trial in open court," he said.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.