Written answers

Thursday, 25 May 2006

Department of Defence

Departmental Inquiries

5:00 pm

Photo of Finian McGrathFinian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 316: To ask the Minister for Defence if he will establish an inquiry into the case of a person (details supplied). [20091/06]

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

The individual concerned was retired, by the President, on the advice of the Government with effect from a date in June, 1969. The retirement was effected pursuant to Section 47(2) of the Defence Act, 1954 and Paragraph 18(1)(f) of Defence Force Regulations A.15, which provide that an officer may be retired "in the interests of the service". The Deputy will appreciate that a decision to retire an officer "in the interests of the service" is only taken for the most compelling reasons. The Government advice to the President was on grounds of security. I am satisfied that the matter was handled in an entirely appropriate and proper manner in 1969 and that the decision taken then was taken only after very detailed and due consideration.

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

In early July 2002, arising from a newspaper feature article on the case, published on 29th June 2002, the then Minister requested the Judge Advocate General to examine and to review the case with regard to the following terms of reference:- "To enquire into the circumstances surrounding the retirement of (the individual referred to) 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, a civilian barrister, carried out a detailed examination and review of all the historical documentation relating to the decision to retire the individual concerned, by reference to 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 the individual applied to the High Court for an order quashing this report by the Judge Advocate General. The High Court found in favour of the applicant for reasons enumerated in the text of the High Court judgement. It should be emphasised, however, that the High Court judgement in the matter of the report of the Judge Advocate General specifically related to the actual procedures utilized by the Judge Advocate General in the course of her review and examination of this matter in 2002 and to the release by the Department of Defence of certain documents to the individual only after completion of the report. The substantive issue, namely the Government decision in 1969 to recommend the retirement of this individual from the Defence Forces by the President, remains entirely unaffected by the judgement of the High Court, a point specifically emphasised within the text of the judgement itself.

The position now is that the individual in question has had access to these 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.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.