Mr. Justice Alan Mahon:

I do not disagree with much of what is in the IRG report. They have suggested that there be a completely revamped investigation system because I think one of the major complaints about the system as it stands is the fact that for the most part, officers sit in judgment of their fellow officers. Under the section 114 system, when a complaint goes into the internal Defence Forces investigation system, it is investigated there, a military investigation officer, who is always an officer, is appointed, and he or she then conducts an investigation. A lot of those investigations are quite impressive - not all of them, and I would disagree with 30% or 40% of them. Many of the members of the Defence Forces, as I understand from the IRG report, take issue with the fact that this is not a properly independent system. That is fine, but I am strongly of the view - I put in towards the end of my opening statement a paragraph to this effect - that there should be a useful working internal grievance system involving Defence Forces personnel. A number of the complaints are very serious and some are quite complex but a lot of them are very minor and are dealt with at local level. If you do away with the internal investigation system and say that every time you have a complaint you have to go to an outside agency, you will put off many people from making the more minor complaints and you will require a very substantial investigation unit to deal with every single complaint. The internal system works reasonably well, in my experience, particularly for a lot of the less serious complaints, and they get resolved at that level. They do not have to come to the ombudsman. I think many Defence Forces personnel would not like a system whereby every complaint they make is automatically moved to an external body. However, I think a lot of what the IRG has recommended in terms of investigation models is useful and I assume it will be thrashed out in greater detail, perhaps, if a statutory inquiry happens.