After Pearls and Irritations published my piece (https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/11/we-dont-do-that-in-this-country-judge-slams-dpp/)
the Director of Public Prosecutions, issued the following statement:
“Trigger warning: This media statement links to information about a sexual assault
matter that some readers may find distressing.
The ACT Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ACT DPP) respects the Court’s
decision making and the Court’s entitlement to robust interaction with practitioners
in dealing with serious matters.
The matter the subject of recent commentary related to DPP v Hojlund (No 2) – ACT
Supreme Court, the facts of which are set out in the Court’s original sentencing
judgement. An appeal was brought on the sole ground the sentences imposed were
“manifestly inadequate.”
Appeals are brought in accordance with the Director’s statutory responsibility to
ensure sentences reflect the gravity of offending and are in line with community
values and expectations. Appeals are an important way in which checks and
balances are maintained in the criminal justice system.
Our role is to act independently, impartially and in the public interest – without fear or favour. That principle continues to guide every decision made by the ACT DPP. “
