A horrific case of child sex abuse comes to light. The alleged perpetrator is identified and interviewed by garda∅. In due course they report that "a file has gone to the DPP".
Some months later the DPP announces that no charges are being brought in this case. The victim expresses shock and distress, and denounces the DPP. There is public outrage.
Or a young mother is killed by a drunk driver while walking along a quiet country road. She leaves a young family. The driver had previous convictions for careless driving. He is charged with drunk driving, he pleads guilty and receives a two-year sentence. He is released after just over a year. The victim's husband is distraught, the community outraged.
There are many other possible examples of decisions made by the DPP which are criticised by politicians, the media and the public. But it has been repeatedly explained by this DPP, Mr James Hamilton, and his predecessor, Mr Eamon Barnes, that no explanation can be given in individual cases why a prosecution is not being brought as to do so would be tantamount to convicting the individual in the media without a trial.
The Statement of General Guidelines for Prosecutors, published yesterday, is a codification and standardisation of the guidelines that inform the work of officers in the DPP's office and the crime section of the Chief State Solicitor's Office, the 32 locally based State solicitors who work on contract, and the barristers who act as counsel for the director. But they are also an attempt to explain to the public the reasoning behind decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute, and the procedures that must be followed.
The general framework is that of the public interest. While it is in the public interest that criminals should be brought to justice, it is not in the public interest that cases should be brought forward where the resources of the State and the courts are spent on a case with little prospect of success. It is also likely to undermine confidence in the justice system if prosecutions are routinely brought which end in acquittals.
So one of the first considerations is the strength of the evidence against the accused, and his or her ability to mount a defence, in the interests of justice. In a child sex abuse case, for example, the offence may have happened a long time ago, many of the witnesses might be dead or too infirm to give evidence, and the victim might be mentally fragile and vulnerable to further damage if an unsuccessful prosecution is mounted.
In many road-traffic accidents the main witness to the accident is dead. Therefore it is likely to be difficult to prove a charge of manslaughter, or of dangerous driving causing death. So the DPP brings forward the charge that is likely to result in a conviction.
These guidelines also explain the current state of the law on the controversial question of plea-bargaining and witness protection.
They make clear that US-style plea-bargaining, where the accused does a deal with the prosecution, sanctioned by the judge, on a sentence in the light of a guilty plea to a lesser charge, is contrary to the Irish Constitution. This states that justice must be administered in public.
But this does not rule out discussions between prosecution and defence on pleas, excluding sentence. The circumstances where this is permissible are spelt out, and the guidelines make clear that any charge proceeded with must be based on the evidence. However, one of the crucial considerations is whether the accused is willing to co-operate in the investigation or prosecution of other crimes.
Lesser charges carry lesser penalties, and this will be well known to both prosecution and defence. However, the process described in these guidelines leaves the matter of sentence to the judge.