Sir, - I was as astonished as most at the news that the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided there was no appropriate criminal offence to cover, in principle, the conduct of certain individuals in the aftermath of the hepatitis C scandal. I would not in any way wish either to raise false hopes of retribution in those who, quite understandably, might think it appropriate, or in any way prolong their grief or distress. Nevertheless, it does appear to me that, at the relevant time, some of the individuals concerned were, undoubtedly, public office holders. They were also, presumably, charged with several duties in relation to the national blood transfusion service.
In my respectful opinion, the common law does not leave the public without access to the criminal courts in the name of the DPP. For that to happen the DPP's office, if it has not already done so, would have to take a closer look at the common law misdemeanour of Misconduct In A Public Office.
As regards intention, the useful legal presumption that a man or a woman is deemed to have intended the natural consequences of his or her acts would equally apply to omissions. Apparently, the status of omissions may have been the stumbling block for other more obvious categories of offences. I would, respectfully, suggest that, provided the appropriate public duty to act can be established, an omission is equally as culpable, in the present context, as any positive act. At the end of the day, it would be for a jury to decide as a matter of fact whether or not the individuals concerned possessed the necessary degree of culpability. - Yours, etc., Peter Connolly, BL
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.