andMr. Bruton asked the Minister for Defence when did a former Army officer (name supplied) have his commission withdrawn; the reasons for such withdrawal; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Withdrawal of Army Commission.
73.
On the 16th January, 1970, the officer in question was tried by general courtmartial on one charge of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline contrary to section 168 of the Defence Act, 1954, in that he improperly abandoned a quantity of ammunition by throwing it into the Grand Canal and on four charges of knowingly signing documents, required for official purposes, that were false, contrary to section 167 (a) of the Defence Act, 1954, in that he signed false records of firing practices and of expenditure of ammunition. He pleaded guilty to all the charges and was sentenced to be fined in the sum of £25, the maximum fine permitted by the Act, and to be severely reprimanded.
Arising out of the charges it was considered that the officer showed himself to be unreliable and irresponsible and that he should not be retained in the Permanent Defence Force. Accordingly the President, acting on the advice of the Government, retired the officer in the interests of the service pursuant to subsection 47 (2) of the Defence Act, 1954, with effect from the 3rd March, 1970.
Could I ask the Minister were the arms put into the Grand Canal or left on the bank? Why did the Department create a precedent and issue a press statement about the withdrawal of the officer's commission? Is it usual to issue such a press statement?
The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and was duly sentenced and fined £25. The courtmartial was held in public.
Were the arms deposited on the canal bank or put into the water? Why was it felt necessary to issue a press statement?
An offence was established which, in the opinion of the court, merited a fine of £25. I cannot go into the actual details.
Were the arms put into the water or were they left on the bank?
The Deputy cannot pursue this matter. This is certainly a separate question.
Were the arms available to be collected by somebody else? Will the Minister confirm or deny that this man was involved in intelligence work for the Army?
The Deputy must not pursue this line.