asked the Minister for Defence whether the military officer who has been given notice of dismissal and the two officers who have been called upon to resign in connection with the raid on the Magazine Fort in December, 1939, were tried by courtmartial and given an opportunity of defending themselves, and, if not, whether he will say why they were denied the right of trial, which they are willing to undergo; and whether he will now arrange for such trial to be afforded them.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - The Magazine Fort Raid.
The officers to whom the Deputy refers were not tried by courtmartial, but they were given a reasonable opportunity to make such representations as they thought proper in relation to their proposed dismissal or retirement.
No member of the Defence Forces has a right to claim trial by courtmartial. The Magazine Fort raid has been the subject of prolonged investigation by a military court of inquiry, and the Government considers that, on the facts revealed, it is now for them to decide whether the officers involved are suitable for retention in the forces.
Accordingly, it is not proposed to convene courtmartial in these cases.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, does he deny that the usual procedure for dealing with a military offence, real or alleged, is trial by courtmartial, that that is recognised as an equitable method of dealing with whatever charge is preferred against a person in the defence forces, inasmuch as the person has an opportunity of defending himself, and will he say why this unusual procedure was adopted of dismissing one officer and prematurely superannuating two other officers without giving them an adequate opportunity of defending themselves by trial by courtmartial?
In the first place, it is not an unusual procedure and they have the right to make representations if they desire to make them.
Will the Minister say when the officers concerned were given an opportunity of making representations—on what date?
Immediately after the findings were agreed to—I think last Thursday.
Is the Minister aware that on last Thursday the officers concerned were served with notice that it had been proposed to dismiss them and to retire them, that they were then asked had they any reasons to furnish why these decisions should not be implemented, but that in fact the decisions were taken first and then they were allowed to make representations on the decisions? That is not trial at all. That is tyranny.
Will the Minister say if, in fact, in reply to a question last week he said that punitive action by courtmartial was pending in the cases? That answer, that courtsmartial were pending, held up certain action on this side. Would he explain why there were courtsmartial pending on Wednesday and that no courtsmartial are being held this week?
Will the Minister say whether Captain Curran was in fact on duty or whether he was supposed to be on duty, or whether he was in any position of authority over the guard on the night of the raid and, if not, why is he being punished?
That is a separate question.
Even at this date, in view of the fact that the military career of these three officers is at stake, would the Minister reconsider the matter now with a view to giving them an opportunity of defending themselves against any charges which it may be desired to make against them?
No, I will not.
In view of the unsatisfactory answer by the Minister, I desire to give notice that I propose to raise this question on the Adjournment.
I shall consider the matter and give the Deputy timely notice of my decision.
The Minister did not answer the particular question I put to him. He said that courtsmartial were pending on Wednesday. Would he give us an explanation——
There are courtsmartial pending for next Wednesday.
But last Wednesday you said punitive action by courtsmartial was pending.
I did not talk about punitive action at all. Somebody else did.
The Prime Minister did, which is quite good enough.
In relation to some of the men.