Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 63 and 88 together.

I thank the Deputies for raising these questions. As I have publicly stated, since becoming Minister for Defence 18 months ago, I have been absolutely clear on the need for urgent transformation of the culture in the Defence Forces. As I have done earlier this evening, I wish to again reiterate in the strongest possible terms that the Defence Forces is a place where no one convicted of serious physical assaults, sexual offences or domestic or gender-based violence can be allowed to continue to serve.

As the Deputy may be aware, the Defence Forces is a disciplined service with an extensive suite of regulations which govern all aspects of military life. Defence Forces regulations are amended on an ongoing basis and recent examples of such changes include changes to senior promotion competitions, mandatory retirement ages and grooming standards. Such amendments are also invariably informed by military advice from the military authorities.

The Deputy may also be aware that the Defence Act 1954 provides for the dismissal of members of the Permanent Defence Forces for prescribed reasons. Accordingly, subject to the provisions of Defence Forces regulations, DFR A.15 paragraph 18(1)(e), an officer of the Permanent Defence Force may be retired "in the interests of the service". Section 50 of the Defence Act provides for the dismissal of officers by the President. In the case of enlisted personnel, DFR A.10 paragraph 58 (m), provides for discharge as a result of conviction by the civil power. While I am satisfied that there are existing mechanisms in place to deal with such cases, I am open to considering proposals to improve and streamline these mechanisms. As already outlined, Defence Forces regulations are reviewed and amended on an ongoing basis. What is of critical importance, however, is that the regulations are applied in a consistent manner by the military authorities. Separately, all serving personnel who are currently before the courts on serious criminal charges including assault and sexual assault, or who have been convicted and are awaiting discharge, are to be put on local leave with immediate effect on a without prejudice basis. This measure is already provided for in the regulations.

I have appointed Mr. Peter Ward SC to undertake a high-level analysis of the application of military law in circumstances where personnel have been convicted of serious offences in the civil courts. Mr. Ward will be asked to come back with an outcome of this high-level analysis, along with any recommendations and any enhanced powers that may be necessary to improve processes, regulations, legislation and reporting arrangements. The terms of reference are almost finalised in this regard. However, we will look at the issue of suspension, whether those regulations are adequate, and we will also look at the issue of the role of the military liaison officer. As was articulated earlier, that has been, to a certain extent, clearly misrepresented in the public commentary around that. It is by regulation that the Defence Forces military liaison officer, under military regulations, is required to attend the courts. The officer is there not to give references as such but to be there and if required by the court has to respond to the court. The prosecution or the defence can question. As I said in an earlier reply, that officer will have the file of the officer who is before the court on a charge and will literally give that material in the file, either verbally or in whatever way, to the court. In some cases, I understand this would be under cross-examination or indeed at the request of the judge in a particular case. However, we are going to review that because the perception of this in recent times is not the reality but neither was it the intention. We just have to be clear on that role into the future. I look forward to the senior counsel's recommendations on that.

See this speech in context