The first decision is whether there's sufficient evidence to support the prosecution. That's a technical decision, if you will. The second is whether it's in the public interest to prosecute. I apply both, and that's exactly what I expect the DPP will do, as well.
The legislation says that I make a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I've met with that office now and have asked them what they wanted done by way of referral. What do they want it to look like? They want a referral and a recommendation, and they want me to cover off why, for example, other alternatives to prosecution are not appropriate. They want a fulsome opinion when I send one to them. But in the public interest, I may decide not to send it to them, even though there may be sufficient evidence to support a charge. That's what I was getting at in my presentation, and they know that.
I'm the gatekeeper, if you will, to the DPP's consideration, but they're content that I be that, at least for the time being. There is no Director of Public Prosecutions, I should say; there is only an acting one at this time. So once a director is appointed, I'll have a clearer view as to how they want to work out this relationship.