Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A young 24 year old lieutenant in the Army was "retired" in the interests of the service, as it was put, in 1969 and his life and Army career lay in ruins. Neither he nor his family ever fully recovered from the traumatic experience. Nevertheless, he has never ceased to protest his innocence.

Donal de Róiste is the brother of Adi Roche, the director of the Chernobyl Children's Fund and Labour Party presidential candidate in 1997. Indeed, the linking of Donal de Róiste's "retirement" from the Army and the circumstance surrounding it effectively scuppered any chance of election for Adi Roche.

Mr. Mullan's book makes it clear that there were serious flaws in the investigation of the de Róiste affair. Due process was not adhered to. Legal advice was not made available to him and he was never charged with any offence. His accuser was never revealed and, most importantly, the recommendation to "retire" Mr. de Róiste was made while the investigation, inadequate as it was, was still ongoing. Indeed, Mr. Mullan argues that senior officers at the highest level in the Army may have fabricated evidence to secure the expulsion of Donal de Róiste from the Army.

There are files relevant to the case in the Taoiseach's Department and in Áras an Uachtaráin, none of which has been released. Almost certainly there are still files in the military archives which have not seen the light of day. For example, a letter sent by Donal de Róiste, through his solicitor to the Army Chief of Staff in 1969, was only discovered in a safe in the office of the Secretary General of the Department of Defence in 2001. There may indeed be documents in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

This case is a miscarriage of justice. It behoves the Minister for Defence to ensure that no stone is left unturned to right the wrong. I ask the Minister to meet Donal de Róiste and to conduct an independent, transparent review of the case. The Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 would be an appropriate mechanism under which to conduct this review.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The book to which the Deputy refers was, I understand, launched by the author last week. My Department has acquired a copy of this book and is examining the contents. I am not aware that it presents any significant new material. An initial review suggests that the book presents a hypothesis by the author based on material that has been available for some time rather than that it presents new material.

Donal de Róiste was retired by the President, on the advice of the Government, with effect from a date in June 1969. His retirement was effected pursuant to section 47(2) of the Defence Act 1954 and paragraph 18(1)(f) of Defence Force Regulations A15, which provide that an officer may be retired "in the interests of the service". These provisions have always been considered as a necessary protection for the Defence Forces and need not be linked to the completion of other specific disciplinary measures.

However, the Deputy will appreciate that any decision to retire an officer "in the interests of the service" is extremely unusual in principle and would only be taken for the most compelling reasons. The Government advice to the President in this case was on grounds of security. I am satisfied from the information available to me that the matter was handled in an entirely appropriate and proper manner in 1969 and that the decision then taken was taken only after very detailed and due consideration.

Donal de Róiste initiated proceedings in the High Court in November 1998 in relation to the circumstances of his retirement 29 years earlier. The High Court found in favour of the State in June 1999 on grounds of the inordinate delay in the bringing of proceedings. Mr. de Róiste appealed to the Supreme Court in September 1999 and the Supreme Court refused his appeal in January 2001.

In early July 2002, arising from the newspaper feature article on the case by Mr. Don Mullan, published on 29 June 2002, the then Minister requested the Judge Advocate General to examine and review the case with regard to the following terms of reference: "To enquire into the circumstances surrounding the retirement of Donal de Róiste by means of a complete review of all relevant documentation held by the Department of Defence and by the Defence Forces, and to have full access to any civil or military personnel for the purposes of their providing explanation in relation to any apparent gaps or ambiguities in the documentation and to report to the Minister with her conclusions and recommendations".

These terms of reference were subsequently enlarged by the then Minister at the request of the Judge Advocate General to provide that the Judge Advocate General was "to be entitled, within the Terms of Reference, and the manner of the Inquiry contemplated, to take such representation in writing from any party whom she considers to be appropriate". The Judge Advocate General carried out a detailed examination and review of all the historical documentation relating to the decision in 1969 to retire Donal de Róiste from the Permanent Defence Force. She carefully examined the entirety of both the civil and military files in the matter. Her report was submitted to the then Minister in mid-September 2002 and was published in October 2002.

In December 2002, Mr. de Róiste applied to the High Court for an order quashing this report by the Judge Advocate General. The High Court found in favour of Donal de Róiste for reasons enumerated in the text of the High Court judgment. It should be emphasised, however, that the High Court judgment in the matter of the report of the Judge Advocate General specifically related to the actual procedures utilised by the Judge Advocate General in the course of her review and examination in 2002 and to the release by the Department of Defence of certain documents to Mr. de Róiste only after completion of the report by the Judge Advocate General.

The substantive issue, namely, the Government decision in 1969 to recommend the retirement of the then Lieutenant Donal De Róiste from the Defence Forces by the President, remains entirely unaffected by the judgment of the High Court, a point specifically emphasised within the text of the High Court judgment itself.

The position now is that Donal de Róiste has had access to all documents relating to his retirement since 14 November 2002 when his legal representatives attended the Department and were given copies of all the relevant records held in my Department. In the circumstances, particularly the considerable passage of time, I do not propose to take any further action in relation to this matter.