Written answers

Tuesday, 1 March 2005

9:00 pm

Photo of Olwyn EnrightOlwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 380: To ask the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself with the outcome of the court of inquiry regarding an incident (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6496/05]

Photo of Olwyn EnrightOlwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 381: To ask the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself that every soldier involved in an incident (details supplied) was treated fairly in subsequent disciplinary procedures, particularly in relation to the use of warnings and reprimands, including severe reprimands; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6497/05]

Photo of Olwyn EnrightOlwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 387: To ask the Minister for Defence, further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 264, 265 and 266 of 27 January 2004, if the officer in charge is responsible for complying with paragraph 4 of training circular 03/77; if he has satisfied himself that on the night in question this paragraph was complied with; if he has not satisfied himself that this paragraph was complied with, if any charges were preferred against those responsible for not complying with this paragraph; the reason an exercise direction was not appointed in this instance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6835/05]

Photo of Olwyn EnrightOlwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 388: To ask the Minister for Defence if he has established the identity of the person who was responsible for the failure to carry out proper procedures that led to an incident (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6836/05]

Photo of Olwyn EnrightOlwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 389: To ask the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself that the current system regarding the application of military law provides for fair procedures and due process and that such procedures pertain regarding an incident (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6837/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 380, 381 and 387 to 389, inclusive, together.

As my predecessor outlined in a reply to a previous question on this matter on 8 July 2004, when an incident involves injury to a member of the Defence Forces, a formal court of inquiry is convened to take evidence and to make recommendations on the matter. In this case, the court of inquiry has not been convened as the incident is currently the subject of a civil action in the courts. I am advised that, once the matter has been disposed of by the courts, a court of inquiry will be convened. As the matter is the subject of legal action and still before the courts, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter at this time. I can assure the Deputy that, following the conclusion of the civil case, a court of inquiry will be held which will undertake a comprehensive examination of all aspects of this case.

Arising out of this incident, disciplinary action was taken against one officer, two NCOs and one private. All were fairly dealt with in accordance with legal procedures as set down under the Defence Act 1954, as amended, and the Rules of Procedure (Defence Forces) 1954 SI 243 of 1954. The officer was awarded a fine, the highest punishment on the scale of punishments awardable by an authorised officer, and did not exercise his legal right to refuse the punishment and elect for trial by court-martial. The NCOs and the private were awarded severe reprimands and a warning respectively which are the second lowest and lowest punishments on the scale of punishments awardable by a commanding officer. The scale of these punishments did not confer a legal right to elect for trial by court-martial. The officer was charged with two offences under section 168 of the Defence Act, one of which was for failure to comply with paragraph 4 of Training Circular 3 of 1977. The charge was found proven and he was awarded a fine accordingly.

The military justice system in the Defence Forces is constantly under review and recently a military law review board reported to the military authorities recommending certain amendments to Part V — Discipline — of the Defence Act. The recommendations, which reflect modern developments of civil law within the State and in military law abroad, have been approved in principle by the Office of the Attorney General. A memorandum for Government is currently being prepared in the matter.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.