Dail (Irish Parliament) debates June 2006 Here is justice Irish style?
Here is how parliamentary debate works in Ireland.
Mr. Boyle: Will the Minister follow the example of his predecessor and find a means through which this injustice can be corrected? As Deputy Costello pointed out, yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the Captain Dreyfus affair and this case has striking parallels. Will the Minister put on record his intention to solve the issue in the quickest possible time?
Mr. O’Dea: The fact somebody is dismissed from the Army does not automatically mean he or she was unfairly dismissed.
Mr. Costello: He did not get due process.
Mr. O’Dea: The Judge Advocate General’s report was quashed on the basis that proper procedures were not followed. It would be impossible to reconstitute that procedure because the nature of the court decision was that the type of inquiry necessary is not appropriate. It would be an inquiry where, on one side, the applicant gives oral evidence, but on the other side, we would have only the dusty archives or people too old or ill to give evidence. Very few people have been dismissed by the Army in the interests of the service because that is a serious matter. The issue in question was taken seriously for that sort of action to be taken.
2 comments:
Please insist in getting answers from anybody who asks you for their vote in this (or any) election year. The state should be answerable to the people. Justice has been denied to me by trickery and lies!
Dail Reply by Defence Minister O’Dea on the 16th of November 2006 to Question Number 62 by Dan Boyle T.D. regarding the Book on Donal Roche’s case. Comments Point by Point on Mr. O’Dea’s Dail reply
by Comdt. P. Walshe (Retd.) 13th of February 2007.
The book to which the Deputy refers was launched by the author last May. My department has examined the contents of the publication. The book does not present any new material of significance to the history of the case.
------------------------
The basic premise of the book was previously presented in a newspaper article written in the summer 2002 by the author of the book.
------------------------
The individual concerned 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 the Defence Force Regulations A. 15 which provide that an officer may be retired in the interests of the service.
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 the 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 position at this stage is that the individual concerned 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.
------------------------------------------------------
I do not propose to take any further action in relation to this matter.
W. O’Dea, Minister for Defence 16th November 2006
The book “Speaking Truth to Power” documents the case in the greatest detail. Much material of significance from Defence Force’s files including a solicitor’s letter which had been withheld from the High Court and Supreme Court was made public for the first time. The book also highlighted significant gaps and ambiguities in the case against Donal Roche.
------------------------
The newspaper article of 2002 was NOT the basic premise of the book.
------------------------
Paragraph 18(1)f as applied in 1969 was significantly amended in February 1985 to allow a defendant due process. The Minister’s reply seems to imply that the provisions of the Act have not been so amended. The deft use of the word “provide” when “provided” should have been used is symptomatic of the evasiveness of the other elements of his reply.
------------------------------------------
What were the compelling reasons that resulted in Donal Roche being “retired”? To date, he has not been given any. The released files do not contain any “compelling reasons”. The Review undertaken by the Judge Advocate General did not uncover any. In fact it found that unsigned and undated documents had been used to make the case for the retirement of Donal Roche.
-----------------------------------------
Fabricated statements attributed to me, Comdt. Walshe, were used by the Defence Forces authorities in their case to the Government and by extension to the President. How can this be reconciled with an “entirely appropriate and proper manner”? How has “detailed and due consideration” been applied when fabrications were being used as part of the Government’s case to the President?
----------------------------------------------
The JAG likewise had access to all these documents for the review ordered by the Minister’s predecessor. Justice Quirke of the High Court found that unfair procedures had been applied in the JAG’s inquiry and directed that it be quashed. In the light of the quashing of the JAG’s review by the High Court, why has the Minister not ordered a new independent review?
I had hoped that an examination of Don Mullan’s book by the Minister and his officials would result in justice being done. Sadly the Minister’s reply proved otherwise. Since the date of the Minister’s reply I have been constrained from commenting because of my more recent attendance at the Commission of Investigation (Dublin and Monaghan Bombings 1974) relating directly to the serious matters dealt with in the book at Chapter 14 “Supermarket for Bombers”.
---------------------------------
It would appear that the Minister has been misinformed by his officials. Perhaps the Minister would propose further action if he were to examine the book properly or if he were to take cognisance of Judge Quirke’s decision.
Patrick Walshe Comdt. (Retd) 13th February 2007.__________________________
Post a Comment