Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

63. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if any changes are planned in relation Defence Forces regulations and sanctions applying in the event of a serving member being convicted of a criminal offence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28135/24]

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

88. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if Defence Forces regulations are to be altered in view of the recent court case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28133/24]

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to focus in on any planned changes the Minister has regarding Defence Force regulations and sanctions that apply in the event of serving member being convicted of a criminal offence. Will he outline plans that are in train or for which he is preparing?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. First, I condemn gender-based violence. There is no space anywhere for it to be tolerated. In the strongest possible way, I commend Natasha O'Brien on her approach and the way she has pressed things forward recently, and also on the way she handled herself when standing up for another victim on the night of her violent incident.

I want to ask about people who are convicted and the way the current system is operating. I understand that there are convicted people still within the military. Is there an indication of how many? Similarly, have there been other people discharged in recent years because of convictions?

What kind of threshold was required to bring about those discharges? Was it particular offences or sentences? What is the threshold expected to be with the revised approach?

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, members of Defence Forces have been discharged as result of criminal convictions in the courts. Apart from the discharge process, there is an existing local leave mechanism that can be used. On 27 June, lest there be any doubt, I instructed that anyone who had been convicted and is awaiting an appeal or is before the courts on the charge of rape or sexual assault be immediately placed on local leave. From the reports we got back, there was a degree of inconsistency, although, having had further discussions with the Chief of Staff, my understanding is that all are now on local leave and not in service. There have been issues raised as result of recent events around the power of suspension. The Defence Forces regulations state that the discharge process may begin after an appeal. I stress that the local leave mechanism was there all the time in respect of sexual assault or a serious section 3 offence. Those are the ones that are horrific in terms of what we witnessed in the Natasha O'Brien case and other cases.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to shift the focus to the victims where there is a conviction in the courts or via courts martial and the review that is proposed. Will the military authorities engage with victims? Will they be bringing them forward to provide evidence? Will they engage with victims after they make a decision? Do they currently engage with victims and let them know of the outcome of courts martial or do victims end up having to hear it informally? What is the plan with the new revised regulations and the sanctions that are in place? What will be the role of victims in that regard? It is very important for them to have a central role and be recognised.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the report of independent review group of 12 months ago was published, I immediately took the decision and gave an instruction to the military that all sexual assault allegations were no longer to be dealt with by the military courts or under military law and that all sexual assault and rape cases were to be referred to the civil courts. That has been the position for over 12 months. I can get precise dates on that. I asked for clear specific reasons. Any case in the military that relates to sexual assault must now be referred to the Garda Síochána for criminal investigation.

In the context of other offences, such as abuse, verbal assaults or physical assaults, that fall within the compass of the military courts, there is within the Defence Forces a stronger focus on the victim. We also have Raiseaconcern, which is anonymous vehicle for members of the Defence Forces to raise their issues with an independent body to give some solace to the victims in terms of cases being identified and so on.