Terry O'Gorman writes on the yet another New South Wales District Court prosecution that has resulted in a Costs Order against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Today’s Australian Newspaper reports on yet another New South Wales District Court prosecution that has resulted in a Costs Order against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

In an exchange during the course of a jury trial in a matter which was not a sex case, Judge Colefax reportedly said to the Prosecutor “how do (you propose to) discharge the onus of proof” to which the Prosecutor answered “we don’t (can’t)”.

The Australian reported that the Crown Prosecutor told the District Court in an opening address that the case had no prospects of success.

Given this startling concession, the Trial Judge took the unusual but sensible step of offering the Crown Prosecutor the opportunity of immediately seeking guidance of a senior member of the New South Wales private bar. Following that, the next day, another Senior Crown Prosecutor appeared and withdrew the case.

The Australian reports the original Crown Prosecutor has since resigned from the DPP, with his departure causing waves within the Office.

New South Wales has a Costs Regime in criminal jury trials. Queensland does not. Costs Applications, after unsuccessful Prosecutions, have become a defacto mechanism for highlighting how the New South Wales DPP is frequently running unmeritorious jury trials.

The problem revealed in this case, and similar cases reported in the Australian over the last 12 months, shows the necessity for a complaint and oversight mechanism to be installed across all DPP Offices in Australia.

None of the Australian DPP Offices have an independent and fully transparent complaints process.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Sex Abuse examined a proposal that Australia institute a DPP Inspectorate nationwide modelled on the United Kingdom Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate which has existed for many years. The Royal Commission, in effect, fudged the issue by not including such an oversight body in its findings and recommendations.

The opaqueness and lack of transparency of DPP Offices around the country, both in relation to Prosecution decisions and complaints about misbehaviours or decisions made by Crown Prosecutors has to end.

It is well overdue for a national Inspectorate of Australian DPP Offices similar to the UK model to be established.