I was a prosecutor when our office became the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1984. The DPP has the power to commence and discontinue prosecutions. We always had pretty good relations with the AFP, and if there was any police criticism of the DPP, it was that the prosecutors sometimes did not go hard enough.

Nearly all of my colleagues thoroughly enjoyed working with the police – I certainly did – I count as good friends a number of former police colleagues. I found the police (and still do) overwhelmingly to be very decent, practical, sensible, honourable professionals who are literally prepared to put their bodies on the line to protect their community. We worked closely together.

Imagine, then, how surprised and disappointed I was to read of the current spat between the DPP and senior police regarding the case involving Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann. I do not know the current DPP well (I’ve said hello to him several times), but other lawyers and prosecutors have spoken highly of him, too.

This mess needs to be cleared up, and I thought the AFPA and Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee’s calls for a full independent inquiry into this matter and the relationship and role of the AFP and the DPP are the only way to go. To get value for money, it may also be sensible to combine it with an inquiry into the criminal justice system in the ACT more generally, with special emphasis on sentencing and bail laws, as the AFPA has been calling for.

I find it incredible that the DPP has been reported as saying he felt the police were actively supporting the defence. Their role is to bring and give evidence to the court. It is common practice for police to talk to crown witnesses, defence witnesses and defence lawyers (and vice versa). There is no property in witnesses. The DPP will, on occasion, drop charges against the advice of police. In my experience, it is somewhat rare for them to insist on pressing ahead with what police may feel is a weak case. That is where politics and other extraneous factors may come in. The role of the DPP is not easy. The buck stops there. He / she has to decide whether or not to prosecute, and in the case of an aborted trial or a hung jury, whether to discontinue proceedings.

The DPP was correct, in my view, to discontinue. Both accused and complainant had suffered greatly as a result of what was always likely to become a media circus where other people had their own agendas to push. I know it would have been a hard decision for the ACT DPP to decline to prosecute. However, it seems that due to a lack of evidence needed, he probably should have done so, and accepted that he would then be pilloried by certain sections of the media and others pushing their own barrows.

That is the role of the DPP. It’s a tough and thankless job because of that, but an essential part of our justice system nonetheless.

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Canberra Daily.