The disciplinary committee investigating the handling of the prosecution of Real Lishman has unanimously dismissed all complaints against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Christian Rocca.

The family of Carolina Lishman, who was killed by her husband in 2017, were aggrieved that the DPP accepted a manslaughter plea from Lishman rather than proceeding to a murder trial. The family alleged that they were bullied and coerced during meetings with the DPP, that the DPP misrepresented the strength of the prosecution’s evidence in the case and that the family was not consulted.

Having considered all the evidence, the committee found that the family of the deceased “Ultimately, [they] willingly, albeit reluctantly, agreed to follow a course of action which involved accepting a plea to manslaughter.” The committee’s final report concludes that: “There is no suggestion that they were coerced or misled into such agreement.”

The committee was formed under the auspices of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority. The panel was composed of: Sir Peter Caruana KC (chair), Guy Stagnetto KC and Kenneth Navas.

Mr Rocca, in his first public intervention since the complaint, has released the following statement to the press: “I have refrained from publicly commenting on this matter until such time as the complaint made by Mr & Mrs Murray and Ms Doris Murray was heard and determined by the Admissions and Disciplinary Committee (“ADC”). The complaint that my decision was taken without consulting with the victim’s family, that they did not agree to that course of action or that I misled the Court has unanimously been found to be incorrect.  All aspects of the complaint against me have been unanimously dismissed by the ADC. The decision can be found on this link https://www.lsra.gi/lsra/all/publications/murray-v-rocca-adc-decision-81

“The criminal justice system operates checks and balances to ensure that the decisions of the police, judges and the prosecuting authorities comply with the requirements of our system and the law. Accordingly, and in this case specifically, the victim’s family had two avenues of recourse available to them in respect of the legal decision taken to accept the plea of manslaughter.

“Firstly, under the provisions of the Victims in Criminal Proceedings Regulations 2015, they were able to ask HM Attorney General (the “AG”) to review my decision. This is what was requested by the victim’s family and in this regard the AG has already made a statement on 19th October 2021 explaining “…the advice of a leading English criminal practitioner was sought on the handling of the case. Based on that advice and on my careful consideration of the matter, I determined that the allegations were unfounded and that the DPP had acted entirely properly.” Based on the evidence before it, the ADC also commented that the decision taken by me fell within the range of decisions properly available to me.

“The second important avenue of challenge that was available was a judicial review of my decision, essentially an examination by a Supreme Court judge into my decision. This was not pursued.

“As regards my professional conduct, the avenue of challenge available in that regard was to file a complaint with the ADC. This was pursued and the ADC’s decision has now been provided and made public.

“The role of DPP requires the office holder to take some very difficult decisions.  These decisions are taken with immense care and guided by a backdrop of codes of practice that govern prosecutors within the legal framework by which we are all bound. It is sometimes the case that the public will not appreciate that a decision is taken say, for example, because there is an evidential flaw or weakness in the case or because a victim or a witness refuses to attend court and testify. These issues are not, in general, made public.

“Finally, although sentencing is a matter entirely for the court, I would like to make a brief comment on the sentence that was imposed. Sentences are imposed by the judiciary after consideration of sentencing guidelines applicable in England & Wales. In this case the Court of Appeal imposed a reduced sentence in keeping with those guidelines.”