Speech - Heads of Prosecuting Authorities of Commonwealth Countries Conference

Speech by Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) Raelene Sharp KC at the 23rd Heads of Prosecuting Authorities of Commonwealth Countries Conference (HOPAC) held in Mombasa, Kenya on 10 June 2025. 

Good morning everyone.

It is my absolute pleasure to be able to join you all here today, and I am honoured to have been asked to deliver the opening remarks for this important conference. 

Firstly, I would like to start by thanking our host, Mr Renson INGONGA, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Kenya, and to congratulate him and his team on putting together such an engaging and insightful program. 

I also want to thank your office’s excellent staff and those in the Secretariat, who I know have been working tirelessly behind the scenes in the lead up to the conference, and on the ground since our arrival. They have all been so very helpful with all of the questions my team has had about the conference and the logistics. 

I was humbled to have been met at the airport (as I am sure all of you were). I was particularly humbled given that I arrived very early Sunday morning. I have a wonderful staff in my office, but I am not confident I could get them to the airport at 5:30am on a Sunday.

Before I turn to what we can expect from the conference, a little bit about me. This is my first HOPAC after all.

For those who are not aware, I want to clarify the Australian anomaly.

As a federation, Australia is lucky to have 9 DPPs, one for each of the states and territories – some of whom are here and represented today, and one for the Commonwealth government, responsible for federal offences. In that regard we are somewhat similar to the US, but for the most part we do not have separate federal courts or jails.

I was appointed as the DPP for the Commonwealth in December 2023. A little over 18 months ago. Although I am here in my official capacity, I am speaking as a barrister and practitioner not as a representative of the Australian government.

For me, that group of Directors – and we have been considering the collective noun for such a group …. The current front runner is a “discretion of directors”, but all suggestions are welcome, means we have a great support network and the capacity to assist each other. 

Last month, we met in person and had a really productive discussion over two days about pressing issues, many domestic but some that feature here. One key theme was the importance but challenge of evidence and matters that require the mutual assistance regime – a topic of ongoing discussion and one that we will also be considering here.

I say a topic of ongoing discussion because as the world gets smaller, and international travel more accessible, the movement of people around the globe means that they may be witnesses/victims/survivors – and indeed offenders – in any jurisdiction.

In Australia we have been looking at how we can work with the central authority, which in for us is our Attorney-General, to make this system more efficient. 

There are, of course, some barriers with the MAR process, not least of which is that it can be very prone to delay. I note that the session on Thursday is about “challenges”, as well as “best practices”. But the principles behind this regime are sound and it is important to look at how we can work within a formalised system of assistance.

Returning then to this conference.

I cannot overstate the importance and value of conferences such as these. They provide us with the forum to discuss our common opportunities and challenges and to see how we can learn from each other to each improve our own practices and offices. 

This cycle of sharing and learning in turn support us each in discharging our duties as prosecutors to the best of our abilities and reflecting best practice, both domestically and internationally.

But what are we here to talk about?

New technology & its impact on crime

As I am sure you are all aware, this conference is focused on how we can build partnerships through cooperation in the fight against terrorism and transnational crime and related offending. 

In that context, it is important that we take the time to look at how we maintain and grow our international partnerships so that we can engage in meaningful cooperation, because transnational criminals do not respect borders: whether geographic or political. Nor do they respect jurisdictional boundaries.

Transnational crime and all the challenges it presents for us, is not going away. It is only increasing, thanks in large part to technological advances. Many of our most serious criminal threats in Australia have an international dimension.

The evolution and omnipresence of the capacity for instant and anonymous communication -whether by platforms we call “social media” or by other means – has meant that criminal networks can now both develop and flourish across the globe. The internet, and the dark web, are facilitating the commission of illegal activities and facilitating the realisation of the profits from those activities, which is the motivation for most transnational crime other than terrorism. 

It is necessary when considering transnational crime to also consider the resulting money laundering that is required to deal with sought after profits. For me those two topics are intrinsically linked.

In the context of terrorism – extremist material is easier than ever to access, and thanks to AI presumably to create. People seeking to radicalize others are able to reach individuals in their home or in any internet café in every part of the world, and they are able to do so under the veil of anonymity. I expect that this will be a topic of conversation during our session after lunch, which will be looking at alternatives to trial and prosecution as a strategy for early intervention to prevent radicalisation, and I will be interested to hear what the DPPs of Uganda and South Australia as well as the Criminal Justice Advisor to the British High Commission, can tell us about how they are approaching this issue in their jurisdictions. 

The same is also true of terrorism financing; with new technology, there has been a proliferation of new and untraceable currencies. It has never been easier to send money around the globe, and to do so undetected. 

To that end, I am looking forward to our session on Thursday morning (after we have all enjoyed our excursions tomorrow) about the “Role of Technology in Detecting and Preventing Financial Crimes”, and to hearing how our colleagues in Ireland and Seychelles are tackling these issues. I am particularly interested to hear about how technology is being used to benefit the fight against crime, instead of being merely a tool to facilitate it. And a scourge for prosecutors in the proliferation of material we have to deal with in every case.

However, I do believe that ultimately technology will provide the solutions to the problems it is currently creating.

The partnership/cooperation cycle 

Focusing on how we can work together to combat crime types that have a transnational dimension is also important. 

My experience from attending conferences, both internationally and domestically – including last week in Edinburgh – is that prosecutors face many common challenges, across our different jurisdictions and legal systems. The same problems exist around the globe, including in the non-common law world.

What I have also seen is that the best way to solve our common problems is together: whether that is by working together directly on particular cases where that is appropriate or required, or by working together to facilitate the MAR processes, or by working together to share our knowledge, our different practices and what we have learnt from those different practices  – both as to what works and what does not work.

Our capacity to work together directly can be a challenge depending on the systems we work in, our roles in them, and the geopolitical context.

And so, it is that final form of working together that is most within our power to control. And what brings us together at this conference.

Over the six sessions, we will have the opportunity to discuss our common challenges and to share our individual approaches to dealing with those challenges. Where we can, I hope that we can also build new partnerships and cement existing ones to facilitate cooperation where appropriate and required.

I want to take a moment, though, to look at exactly what we mean when we talk about “partnership” and “cooperation”. To me, the relationship between these two concepts is symbiotic or circular; building one necessarily builds the other.

We need to build partnerships for co-operation, and by cooperating can we strengthen those partnerships. 

Both have an element of common purpose: working together in pursuit of a shared goal. And a functioning and beneficial partnership, like any relationship, requires actions to maintain and affirm the existence of shared understandings and aims. 

The shared goal is easy to articulate: the provision of fair and robust prosecution services to our respective communities. 

That common role has been front of mind for me as I have prepared my short presentation as a panellist on the first panel discussion later this morning, I look forward to hearing from the DPPs of England and Wales and Mozambique about how they approach the prosecutorial discretion in relation to terrorism and money laundering offending. 

Working within the Mutual Assistance Regime

Of course, when looking to build our partnerships and systems of co-operation, we must do so within the formalised Mutual Assistance Regime, or MAR. 

We are fortunate to have two sessions on Thursday focusing specifically on it.

We will be hearing first from representatives from our hosts, Kenya, one of their neighbours, Tanzania and from the USA about best practices in responding to challenges to Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition processes.

Then we will be hearing from representatives from the Directors from New Zealand, Zambia and Queensland about promoting cross-border cooperation through enhancing capacity building.

I am really interested to hear about how other countries are navigating this regime, particularly because it has been such a hot topic of conversation between the Australian Directors in recent months. 

Not re-inventing the wheel and meeting international standards

I am sure that we all have some useful developments, and learned hard lessons, throughout our own experiences of prosecuting transnational crime, terrorism and related offending.

We will also have the opportunity to hear about some specific national approaches to the response to this offending. Later this morning with the session on alternatives to trial and prosecution as a strategy for early intervention. I am sure the panelists – from Uganda, South Australia and the UK, will have some valuable insights to share.

Having just attended the conference of the international society for the reform of the criminal law, I can say that there continues to be a discussion about alternatives to prosecution, including about when and whether “restorative justice” is a good fit for particular crime types. The short version: it is not always, but in considering all options, the academy provides food for thought for policy makers and practitioners alike.

What follows then is a further session on national approaches – this time focussed on asset recovery - how it can be leveraged to combat illicit flows of money linked to transnational organised crime. This response to offending targets the main motivator for transnational organised crime: the money. But money is also the key factor of terrorism funding. 

I look forward to hearing about national perspectives from Scotland, our hosts, Kenya, and from two international groups: the international association of prosecutors and the SecFin East Africa Project which aims to support Sub-Saharan Africa countries to prevent and combat illicit financial flows linked to transnational organized crime, by strengthening efforts the “anti-money laundering” and “countering the financing of terrorism” (so called AML/CTF) efforts, in line with international standards.

That will be a great opportunity to learn about how other countries are tackling certain discrete issues. 

This is just one example of a number of different areas in which I am sure our DPPs are doing interesting work. 

Final Remarks

By way of concluding, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to make these short remarks. It has been a pleasure.

As I said, this is my first HOPAC, and I look forward to building the relationships with my counterparts in the common law world and beyond. The ability to share the lessons we have learned, our successes and our failures with each other, is integral to our collective continued development. There is no point re-inventing the wheel. 

I am a true believer in the value of face-to-face meetings: nothing is better than being in the room where things happen. 

As I said, the Australian Directors meet regularly, and I am sure that you all meet with your regional counterparts as well, but it is also important to gather this wider group to be able to build key international partnerships, and to have a forum to exchange ideas and perspectives across the common law world, so that we can continue to discharge our duties to the best of our capacity with a goal always of being exemplars in our field: meeting international standards through our own actions and by our contributions to communities such as this.

I want to say one final thing about our role as prosecutors. Those of use who exercise the prosecutorial discretion, a key feature of the common law world, are fundamental to the respect for and implementation of the rule of law. We are where the rule of law finds voice: we stand between the exercise of executive power in the form of the criminal justice system and the citizen. The importance of that role cannot be overstated. Our independence and integrity are fundamental to that task. We must all be alive to decisions and conduct that undermines both our ability to discharge our duties independently.

For me, protecting the functioning of our systems is as important as discharging our duties. And we are all responsible for both.

It is, therefore, very important work that we do, and I am so pleased to be part of the network that is HOPAC, in seeking to do that work to the best of my abilities.

Can I again congratulate Kenya on bringing together representatives from 14 of the 25 (according to Wikipedia) common law countries, and colleagues from outside the common law world – from Azerbaijan and from international and regional NGOs, to contribute to the panels and important discussions we will have in the plenary sessions.

I am now honoured to be able to hand over to the honourable Ms Dorcas Oduor SC, Attorney General for the Republic of Kenya for the Keynote Address.