Political reaction: State expert witnesses may have to lodge their evidence in court immediately to ensure that it survives their death or ill-health, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said.
Michael McDowell's comments came after the Director of Public Prosecutions James Hamilton yesterday announced that he would not proceed with the retrial of Dermot Laide for the manslaughter of Brian Murphy outside Club Anabel six years ago.
Reluctant to comment on the DPP's decision not to prosecute, the Minister for Justice said: "This is a matter for the DPP." However, he would hold talks with Mr Hamilton quickly to "see if there are ways in which we can preserve evidence in advance".
The testimony of key State witnesses, such as the State pathologist or fingerprint experts, had to be protected to ensure that it survived "random and unpredictable events".
Former State pathologist Dr John Harbison retired in January 2003, carrying out his last autopsy on January 4th that year, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform said.
Mr McDowell said the State had been told "a few months ago" that Dr Harbison's ill-health would affect his ability to give evidence in cases where he had carried out examinations.
"I believe that in recent months some concern was expressed. At the time, the DPP decided to have a number of cases in which he was involved expedited," Mr McDowell told The Irish Times.
However, he refused to entertain questions about whether dozens of other cases in which the evidence of Dr Harbison secured prosecutions could now have to be reopened.
Though he said he had no concrete plans, he said it may be necessary for Dr Harbison's successor, Dr Marie Cassidy, and other key State witnesses, to give testimony under oath for use in court at a later date.
The pre-recorded testimony would only be used if the State witness was unable to appear before the court to give their evidence to ensure that the rights of the accused person would be affected to the least possible extent since the evidence would not be open to cross-examination.
Though "no perfect solution" existed, he said the State had a responsibility to find one that would be "consistent with the rights to a fair trail" which would also ensure that the testimony of a witness who would have a vital role to play in "hundreds of cases" was heard by a court.
Mr McDowell said it would not be possible for the State "to double up" with pathologists, fingerprint experts etc.
"Not only would they have to turn up together to every crime scene at the same time, they would also have to agree on everything," he said, fearing the prospect of numerous legal challenges.
