STAFF DISCONTENT in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions reached a critical stage in late 2002 when the Public Service Commission ordered an investigation. In early 2003 the subsequent report by the Muirhead Committee recommend a major overhaul of staffing and organisational structure.
The committee found deficiencies in the organisational structure and in the process of selecting staff and filling vacancies a factor which had caused much of the conflict. An action plan should have been developed to implement the recommendations of the Committee. We do not know if this has happened and despite calls from several lobby groups the full report of the Muirhead Committee has never been released to the public.
In the absence of the specifics it is difficult to assess what has transpired since then. The latest episode of discontent suggests that not much has changed.
The Prime Minister yesterday took a decisive step in a letter to the DPP instructing him to make timely reports to Parliament. Previously, in his Budget speech earlier this week, he had merely expressed support for the view that the DPP should submits such reports, even before a possible review of the constitutional provisions which created the office. Those provisions make the DPP subject neither to direction nor control of any person or authority.
Indeed the DPP can only be removed from office by reason of physical or mental infirmity or for misbehaviour; and such misbehaviour must be determined by a tribunal appointed by the Governor-General in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister.
The protection from official interference which the constitution offers the Office of the DPP is a valuable shield, but it can also hide inadequacies that diminish efficiency and devalue public confidence in the operation of the office as a vital part of the justice system.
Mr Pantry's threats against the media is a matter of some concern. While we acknowledge the sensitivity of publicity that offends the sub judice principle, his combative stance threatens other rights in the public domain; among them the freedom of expression in a democratic society, subject of course to the laws of libel and slander.
We think it significant that the five predecessors in the office of DPP performed without a whisper of protest or controversy. So much has changed but not for the better.
Even without knowing the details of the Muirhead Report it would be pointless to call for another enquiry. But it is urgent to promote greater efficiency in a justice system so overburdened and dependent on one of its most vital segments. The Prime Minister's action yesterday is appropriate and timely.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
