Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Defence Bill, 1951 debate -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1952

SECTION 176.

I move amendment No. 213:—

In sub-section (2), to delete paragraph (a), page 76, lines 41 to 45, and page 77, lines 1 and 2.

This section deals with the disposal of charges against officers. Sub-section (2) (a) provides that where the officer charged holds the rank of commandant, lieutenant-commander or higher the commanding officer, on investigation of the charge, may dismiss it or refer it for court-martial. Sub-section (2) (b) provides that in the case of all other officers, i.e. junior officers, the commanding officer may dismiss the charge, or bring it to trial by an authorised officer, or refer it for court-martial. Where the case goes to an authorised officer, he may impose a fine not exceeding £5 or award a severe reprimand or a reprimand.

The point involved here, as I see it, is that, in the case of a lieutenant-commander or commandant or officer of higher rank, the officer who will be dealing with it will be a senior officer, and his discretion would be accepted before that of a junior. The sub-paragraph (a) provides that the officer investigating the case may dismiss the charge if he considers it should not be proceeded with, or take steps to bring the officer charged to trial by court-martial. Sub-paragraph (b) provides that, subject to regulations made under Section 183, he may take steps to bring the officer charged to trial by an authorised officer. The only difference is the " subject to regulations, take steps " and so on. Is that not so?

I think it is a distinction of rank.

These two amendments seek to alter the present law so that officers of the highest rank could be dealt with summarily and awarded a fine or reprimand. Obviously, this would be quite derogatory to the status of senior officers. The present position is the only satisfactory one, i.e. that if a senior officer is charged with an offence which cannot be dismissed, it should go to a court-martial. In the ordinary nature of things, disciplinary charges against senior officers must be few and, where they are preferred, must be serious.

The principle seems sound enough. Some explanation was necessary.

Amendment No. 213, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 214 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 215, 216 and 217 deal with the question of punishments.

I move amendment No. 215:—

In sub-section (3), paragraph (a), page 77, to add at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) the following :—

(iv) admonishment.

(v) warning.

In sub-section (3), page 77, I want to add certain punishments. Where an officer holding the Army rank of captain is brought to trial before an authorised officer, the authorised officer may decide to send him for court martial or, if after hearing the evidence, he decides to deal with it summarily—and if he does not dismiss the case—he may impose a fine not exceeding £5 or a severe reprimand or a reprimand.

I look upon a reprimand even in the case of a captain as a very severe punishment, and I want to add two other punishments of lesser gravity—an admonishment which is something less than a reprimand, and a warning, which is something less even than an admonishment. In other words, I would put in two more scales of punishment. I think there is scope for it and ask the Minister to accept it.

It seems pointless to add admonishment and warning to severe reprimand and reprimand, thus having four degrees of telling-off. But there is an even more serious objection. Admonishment is a frequent incident in Army life, but it is not a punishment as a result of trial by a commanding officer or court-martial. A number of complaints against officers do not come to trial, and they usually end by the Adjutant-General directing that the officer be paraded and admonished. The Deputy's amendment would prevent this. Furthermore, if this amendment and later ones to the same effect were accepted, any officer attempting to admonish anybody in the course of duty might be faced with a demand for a formal trial and there would be continuous complaints that punishments were being awarded without the trial provided for in the Act. For these reasons, I consider the amendment undesirable.

An officer can be admonished, and it is not formal in the sense of being done as a result of a trial. It is a mere admonishment, to let the officer know that he has done something he should not have done, and that he is being informed of that fact. It would be undesirable to add this as a punishment arising from a trial.

Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, and making allowance for this matter of admonishment which, apparently, has grown up and which has no justification—that is something that can be considered at some other time—I feel that where a person investigates a charge summarily and may fine a man £5 or issue a severe reprimand or a reprimand, any of those three appearing on his record documents would be a severe blot on him. There ought to be scope for some minor punishment where the officer has done something which his commanding officer cannot very well dismiss, but which does not call for a reprimand. The Minister might meet this by agreeing to " warning " as another step. I do not mind what it is called; I want something less than reprimand.

The present position is substantially as outlined here. A fine, a severe reprimand or a reprimand deals with the charges.

Mr. Brennan

Under existing regulations what happens when it is not even a reprimand? Is it a dismiss?

Yes. The trouble is that you do not dismiss it, you are inclined to put down a reprimand. look upon that as a severe blot which may prevent a man from being promoted. If it were recorded that on investigation of some case he was warned, I do not think the Minister or the authorities would deem that sufficient to block his promotion. If there is not a safety valve, a reprimand is put down.

At the moment admonishment is the least of all the disciplinary measures that can be taken against an officer. If you wipe out admonishment you have to substitute something, but whatever you substitute will have to be recorded against the officer. We deal with promotions at the Council of Defence, and we have the records of all officers concerned before us. Officers come before us who had had admonishments recorded against them.

Mr. Brennan

I understood this was a new type of thing.

Not at all.

The admonishments do not affect our judgment. The admonishment may be for some form of carelessness—it usually is—that is, if a man may be so careless in the exercise of his duty that he is admonished. It is recorded, of course, because admonishments must be recorded. When it comes to dealing with promotion, unless it is something much more serious than carelessness or forgetfulness, it is not held against him for promotion purposes.

The Minister raises a point here that requires explanation. Reprimand and severe reprimand are prescribed as punishments and they are in effect only punishments in so far as they are recorded against the officer. If it is necessary for us to give statutory authority to such punishments for recording, I fail to see the legality of a process by which a man is informally admonished and that is recorded against him. From the military discipline point of view, I thoroughly agree with the Minister that occasions will arise where it is desirable to bring an officer up and say to him: " You fell down, you have been careless and let it not happen again; consider yourself admonished." That would be an admonishment. Or you could give him a warning that his conduct has not been satisfactory in some regards and that it must not happen again. I can see that that is a necessity of ordinary routine, but that is not meant to be a punishment and I think a system which would allow that to be recorded and to be treated as a punishment outside the Act is extremely undesirable. It raise the question here now as to whether it should not be brought into the Bill, if it is to be treated as a punishment. I agree with the Minister's approach. I think that these three punishments are absolutely adequate. The line I am taking now is that it is very objectionable that these informal admonishments or warnings which are made without any form of trial should be treated as punishments and recorded against the officer.

Mr. Chairman, you must not have been listening to what I said. In the course of the statement I made, I said that admonishment is a frequent incident in Army life, but it is not a punishment coming as a result of a trial by court-martial or before a commanding officer. If we were to accept the amendments, we would be making it a punishment of that type.

I thoroughly agree with the Minister that far, but if the type of punishment the Minister is talking about now is, in fact, recorded against the officer, it is, in effect, a punishment, as it is something that is going to be weighed against him, admittedly in a balanced way. In other words, it goes into his personal file. The question I ask is if it is necessary to put this into the Bill as a punishment or is it legal that this other system should go on.

The Chairman is on very sound ground here. If an officer is brought before the commanding officer and tried, he has a right to produce witnesses and defend himself as if before a district justice outside. He can ask the commanding officer to send him for trial by court-martial, and this gives him a better opportunity of defending himself. I always felt that a reprimand was a severe blot on a person's conduct sheet that might prevent his promotion, and, therefore, could be a very severe punishment. I felt that, for some of the minor types of offence that come before a commanding officer, he should have the right to record admonishment or warning. What the Minister says in regard to admonishment, examined from the point of the Chairman's analysis of it, is a very serious thing. It means that the Adjutant-General may decide that an officer in Cork is guilty of some offence—after all, it is an offence of some kind, some conduct or neglect, to the prejudice of good order or military discipline—and may decide in his office in Dublin that that officer should be admonished. His commanding officer is instructed to admonish him. I can imagine that happening, and I know that it has happened, but I was never aware of the fact that it was recorded on his personal file.

That would come very near an illegality.

Is it recorded?

It never was, but apparently it is done now. It is developing.

First of all, I agree with the Minister as against Deputy Cowan. I think that this is sufficient as far as the Bill is concerned, but in the discussion something has been disclosed regarding admonishments. Again I agree with the Minister that for administrative purposes, for ordinary purposes of discipline, these things are necessary, but what I am querying is the recording of such admonishments and warnings as if they were punishments in the officer's personal file in such a way that they would weigh against him. Why should reprimands be prescribed ? In what does the punishment consist? In the fact that it is recorded against him and weighs against him in his professional future. If I were defending an officer or advising an officer legally I would consider whether he was being treated illegally by such a system. I would also consider whether it was not an adverse report which should be brought to his notice in a formal way as is provided under the law. I agree with the Minister but I would like to take this opportunity of querying the custom as not being quite in accordance with the law—whether it is 100 per cent. desirable. The Minister might consider that as an incident arising out of this debate.

I am satisfied that the situation is perfectly all right and that there is nothing illegal about it in any respect whatever. Further, I am satisfied that if we were to accept the Deputy's amendment, you would instead of simple admonishments, have more frequent courts-martial which would also be recorded against the officers. From that point of view I feel that to accept the amendment would be a retrograde step and I am not prepared to accept it.

I wonder would the Minister deal with the point I have been making? I agree with him on the section. I feel that such informal admonishments and warnings in their consequences and recording as if they were penalties on conviction are highly undesirable.

They should not be recorded.

Such a system should be re-examined.

I am prepared to admit that in the normal routine of the Army you may have a ticking off which you can call an admonition, but if that man has not been given an opportunity of presenting his defence, that admonishment should not be recorded against him.

I am perfectly satisfied that if an officer commits an offence which is not of sufficient seriousness to call for trial by court-martial——

Or to be tried summarily.

——but is of such a type that he should be admonished then the Army authorities should not be deprived of the possibility of admonishing him.

Agreed, but it should not be recorded with the same effect as a punishment.

Whether it is recorded or not, the fact is that if an officer should be admonished, he will be admonished, and there it is. If an officer is neglectful in some respect he should be punished in that way, if you call it punishment. Surely if an officer through neglect or carelessness earns admonishment, you are not going to deprive the authorities of that right ?

When he is admonished it must be recorded.

You are attaching a penalty. You are making a farce of our prescribing the law if it is going to be a Star Chamber process.

It is not a Star Chamber process: that is an exaggeration.

It is not an exaggeration.

I am pressing this to a division.

It is not a question of a division. The case is that the same care and investigation will not be given to an admonition as should attach to a punishment. It can happen that a commanding officer reports a certain situation which can be of the type Deputy Cowan says and the Adjutant-General will probably say that the officer should be admonished. That is perfectly all right and correct and it is absolutely necessary that that power should be there for discipline, but if it is serious enough for recording then it is serious enough to be treated formally and the officer should be given summary trial or court-martial. That does not arise on the section; as a matter of fact I thoroughly agree with the Minister there.

It is double punishment.

Mr. Brennan

What type of crime—that may be too strong a word—would call for a reprimand? Cite an example. You are an Army man.

Suppose that there is a regulation that officers must be in at a certain hour in barracks and an officer comes in five minutes late. Probably his commanding officer says: " Do not do it again " and that is all there is to it. The next night he comes half an hour late and certainly that is a case where the man is brought up and admonished, but he is not tried. If he comes late on the third night, he will bring him up, parade him for orders and try him summarily.

I would not say most, but a lot of these summary charges hinge around officers' messes. There is a regulation to pay the mess bill on the 12th of the month—that used to be the rule. If you pay it on the 13th you have committed an offence and you are reported on the 15th. I am getting a bit rusty on these things, but the rule is strictly enforced. If you do not pay on the 12th you are liable to be reported, brought up and reprimanded, severely reprimanded, or fined. If the man puts forward to the person trying him some explanation, although it does not entirely acquit him, he should not have a reprimand recorded against him. I do not know what the percentage now is, but it is an astonishing thing that there has always been an awful lot of trouble about the accounts of officers' messes. Everybody gets into trouble.

Mr. Brennan

Would the officer get his pay ?

Yes, on the 1st of the month.

That regulation is a very necessary and proper one. Frequently an officer will innocently forget and in that case somebody tips him off saying: " Look here, it is the 12th," and he pays it. The officer may overlook the matter, and his commanding officer may bring him in and talk to him about it. If there is a more serious aspect of the matter it must be followed up in a formal way. Take the danger of the type of thing that could happen. Suppose an officer for some reason does not pay his mess bill on the 12th and his commanding officer does not go any further, but as he is entitled to do says: " You have not paid your mess bill, I admonish you." That is an ordinary formal admonishment, but if the officer were brought to trial he might have, not perhaps a complete defence, but extenuating circumstances which he can bring forward. If the other thing is to be recorded formally without its being brought to the officer's notice that it is being recorded, you have an objectionable situation immediately. I think, however, that the section is completely adequate.

Without the amendment?

Yes, but I was taking the opportunity of pointing out the undesirability of the other procedure when the recording has in effect the same consequences as a punishment, in a lesser degree, of course.

Mr. Brennan

Assuming that there were certain extenuating circumstances as far as the officer's financial position was concerned as between the day he received his pay and the 12th when he must meet his liabilities and if he approached his commanding officer to explain the matter, could he get out of it?

There is a certain amount of elasticity.

You must remember that these are debts that need not be amassed at all. They are generally in connection with the mess itself. If a man is in the position you visualise, he need not amass these debts.

He must eat. He has to pay 4/- or 5/- per day for his food and that amounts to £6 or £7 at the end of the month.

That is a normal expense of the household type. If he were living outside, he would have to pay.

Mr. Brennan

He could get credit outside.

Not only does he get credit in the mess but he gets better value than outside.

I saw the development of this whole business. There never was any great trouble about it until one case where a mess of officers in the very early stages of the State were broken up and distributed around the country. It happened to be in a town in the constituency of the then Minister for Defence. A considerable sum of money was owed by the mess to traders and this affected the Minister's position at the time. There were all sorts of inquiries and trouble. There was no trouble anywhere else but as a result of this type of happening this regulation was brought in about paying on the 12th of the month and being reported to the Adjutant-General on the 15th. There is most elaborate machinery and more charges and trouble arising out of the mess regulations than out of anything else I know of.

Surely it was a most necessary regulation to bring in. Let me explain this to Deputy Brennan, who has raised the point. A mess has to depend on the payments it receives from the members to whom it supplies services and goods. If these members fail to pay for what they have received, if everybody decided not to pay, there would be no mess and no services or goods. The mess has to exist on the payments it receives, and if it does not receive payment it cannot exist any more than any other business concern. If a situation arose such as Deputy Cowan suggested, then the mess must have been going into debt with the firms in question, because the mess members themselves were not paying their debts. That was a most dishonourable state of affairs. If the officers concerned met their debts as honourable men should, the situation that appears to have arisen would not have arisen. I do not think, however, that the matter arises on this amendment at all, because that type of offence would be tried summarily or by court-martial, and would not be met by a mere admonishment. Where an officer fails to pay his mess debts, it is regarded as a serious matter owing to the facts that I have just mentioned. If such a thing were persisted in, an admonishment would certainly not meet the case. It would have to be possibly, a trial

If a man is brought in under circumstances which have been suggested here before his commanding officer and admonished, is there any chance for him to make a case, if he has any extenuating circumstances to put up, before the admonishment?

He has no right to make a case.

That is the point.

He possibly would have no case to make.

If it is serious enough to be recorded against him, he ought to be given a chance to make a case.

If it is serious enough to be recorded, it is serious enough for summary trial.

There is the opportunity provided. Surely you do not think that an officer brings a man in and tells him straight away : " You are admonished. Get out." That does not happen. He is told what he is being brought before the commanding officer for. The officer tells him : " It has been brought to my attention that you have failed to pay your mess debts. "—Or whatever the matter may be; it may be some other offence.—"What explanation have you to give?" He is allowed to make full and ample explanation and if the officer is satisfied with the explanation the admonishment does not take place. If, however, the explanation is unsatisfactory the admonishment is administered.

My memory serves me now with a case which I came across myself. I had no idea that anything like that would be recorded. I have not the faintest idea if the case in question was recorded against the officer. Round about Christmas, 1941, a soldier in a picket lost 50 rounds of ammunition one night. The officer in charge, who was very harassed at the time and had been on duty a long time, did not notice it until a number of hours had elapsed. In fact the ammunition was discovered. It fell off a van on the road approaching the wood afterwards. It was a number of days before the 50 rounds was found. I investigated and, not being able to get any further, had to report it. I got a direction from the commanding officer, having heard my version—not the officer's version, having heard my report, to admonish the officer concerned as part of the disposal of the case. I brought in that officer and I said to him: " You should have checked your ammunition." As a matter of fact it was only a matter of a couple of hours. There was nothing serious from the officer's point of view at all and the ammunition was actually within the ground of the post. If that was recorded against that officer, and if the officer himself had thought it was going to be recorded, much more care would have been taken with the question of putting down the facts and all that; but, especially as the matter was cleared up immediately by finding the 50 rounds, everyone forgot about it. There would be nobody more surprised than I would be if that were recorded in any records.

Did it ever have any adverse effect on the officer in question ?

I do not know. I am giving it as an example of the type of thing that could happen. If it was recorded that this officer had lost ammunition and had been admonished for losing ammunition, it might be a serious thing against him.

We were always very keen in the Army—and everybody is—that where an adverse report is made by a senior officer about an officer, that that adverse report would be shown to the officer, and he is allowed to read it and sign it to show that he had read it. In other words, fair play was the basis of itthat you could not be knifed in the back.

That is a regulation

The officer is not knifed in the back if he is brought before a superior officer and, in the clearest possible language, told why he is being admonished after he has been permitted to make an explanation. Surely there can be no suggestion that such an officer is knifed in the back.

The point is that he may be admonished without being given any opportunity of making any rebutting case. The proceedings of an inquiry, court-martial or investigation, may come to the Adjutant-General, and the Adjutant-General may say, having read these proceedings, that Captain So-and-So, Colonel So-and-So or Lieutenant So-and-So should be admonished, and the instructions then would go down to the particular commanding officer to admonish him.

I will take you up as to what would happen at that stage. The commanding officer is sitting in his office. The officer is brought in formally—paraded—and the commanding officer would say: " Lieutenant So-and-So, I have been instructed to administer this admonishment to you," and Lieutenant So-and-So will say: " But, sir," and the commanding officer would say: " I am sorry. I have directions from the Adjutant-General. You are admonished. Out." On a summary trial he will have a chance of making his case.

Taking it another way, the commanding officer may say, " Look here, Bob, at what I have got from the Adjutant-General ", and he may hand it across the table to him, and he will say then, " Now you are admonished."

A good commanding officer would not do a thing like that.

Here is the danger—when the Adjutant-General sends out that letter, he sends a copy across to the personnel section to be placed on the officer's personal file. That is the danger.

And that has the same effect——

——as if he was brought up and punished.

That is the one point I am making.

Where the Adjutant-General directs that an officer be admonished, is it being suggested that he does so without any knowledge, good, bad or indifferent, of the circumstances of the offence committed by the officer ?

It is not so much that that could happen as that he might have received second-hand information from unreliable or interested sources. That is the danger.

All I can say is that officers making reports must be regarded as very dishonest.

That does not follow.

I remember on one occasion officers being severely told off in connection with the procedure of a court-martial of which they were members sworn to do their duty in accordance with the law.

I do not think that would happen nowadays.

I know it would not happen nowadays. There was certainly a row kicked up at that time.

It seems silly to go through all the formality of providing punishment, severe reprimand and reprimand, and putting it down in the Act, and all that when another system is running informally, so to speak.

Mr. Brennan

We are dealing here with where a man is guilty of some action, for which, in accordance with the gravity of the offence, he can be fined £5 or given a severe reprimand or a reprimand. The type of action which deserves any of these three is in a particular category of its own, and the action of which he may be guilty and for which he can receive a telling off, admonishment or warning is in a different category also. Is not that correct ? I am going on what the Minister said.

The matter would not be regarded as being sufficiently bad to warrant a trial. Deputy Cowan wants to add admonishment and warning as punishment as a result of trial All that would happen is that, instead of the thing being dealt with by your being brought before me and my saying to you, " I admonish you for something that you did ", you would have to be tried formally. If, in the first instance, an admonishment would have been merited, it stands to reason that, if tried, you would be found guilty, and a much more severe penalty would be imposed which would be recorded against you in the same way as admonishment, but it would be a much more serious punishment and a much more serious thing to have it recorded against you. I do not think there is any necessity for adding these two things as a reason for a trial. That is why I am objecting to the amendment. If Deputies will read the Bill, they will see that, after the evidence is heard, the individual is given an opportunity of making a statement and refuting the charge.

I think the majority of the Committee agree with the Minister in that. It is what I might call the matter disclosed by the Minister's statement that has caused the remarks we are making.

: I would suggest that it would be better if we dealt with that again on the section.

Before I ask you to put the amendment I want to clear up two things. I feel now, from the discussion, that it is necessary to put the amendment so that admonishment will be an official punishment of a less grave nature than reprimand that can only be imposed after due investigation in accordance with law, and that the system of admonishment that has grown up in the Army will not be legal any longer. Take the ordinary thing that happens in the every-day life of the Army, where the senior officer ticks off or tells off or speaks severely to a subordinate. That happens every day. It is part of the ordinary Army life But, it is never recorded. There is no reason why there should be a record of a punitive decision taken by the Adjutant-General or somebody else on documents that come before him, without the man getting an opportunity of making a case in his own defence.

Would the Chairman's suggestion that admonishment be not recorded not meet with general approval ?

The view of the Committee seems to be that that should not be recorded, but unfortunately we cannot put that into the section. We can only deal with the amendment that is there, and I propose to press my amendment for the purpose of having a recorded decision with regard to it. There was a point which arose, and perhaps I was responsible myself for bringing it in, with regard to the question of officers' messes. It is only right that we should say that the incident I mentioned in connection with a particular mess occurred during a period of internal emergency when officers were being moved around from place to place and debts accumulated. Let me put it this way : We have here in Leinster House, as it were, a mess. We can run up bills in the restaurant, and when we are asked to pay them we do so. My experience, and I think the experience of everybody, is that 99 per cent. of officers will punctually pay their mess accounts, but it is wrong that they should be subjected to this terrorism if they have not paid them on a particular day of the month.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 1; Níl, 5.

Tá.

  • Cowan, Peadar.

Níl.

  • Minister for Defence.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 216 :—

In sub-section (3), paragraph (c), page 77, line 42, before " or " to insert " severe reprimand or reprimand ".

This sub-section provides that if the commanding officer proposes to fine him or make a deduction from his pay, the officer involved will have the option of electing to be tried by court-martial. I want to ensure that where the investigating officer, an authorised officer or a commanding officer as the case may be, proposes to administer a severe reprimand or reprimand, he will also give the officer an opportunity of electing to be tried by court-martial.

Up to this a junior officer has not had the right to elect for trial by court-martial where he objects to the action proposed to be taken by the authorised officer as regards the imposition of a fine, fortfeiture or deduction or cost of damages. It is not considered necessary, however, to give him the same right where only a severe reprimand or reprimand is involved. If the charge is such as to be met by one of these punishments, a great waste of time of many officers as well as a good deal of expense would be involved in trying it by court-martial. The whole idea behind summary trial for officers when it was first introduced in 1940 was to save the time and expense involved in having full dress courts-martial trying minor charges.

I agree entirely with the Minister that it is desirable to have summary disposal of charges, and I agree that, in perhaps 90 percent. of cases going before an officer, where the officer proposes to administer a reprimand, it will be accepted. But there will be exceptions. Justice is based on the rights of individuals. An individual may be of opinion that he has been unjustly dealt with, that he is getting a punishment against which he cannot appeal. We had it in the civil law and we had to fight for years to get an appeal against an order binding to the peace. District justices bound a man to the peace and he had no redress. It was a very simple thing, but he had no redress, no appeal. After long years of struggle, a right of appeal was given in that case. No officer wants to go before a court-martial if he can avoid it. It is expensive. He has to brief somebody to defend him, as a general rule, and that is not done for nothing, so that an officer will think twice before asking to be sent for court-martial, but if he wants to go for court-martial he ought to have the right to ask for court-martial.

It all comes back to the same point: if the authorities believe that a reprimand will suffice, why should the State, the individual and everybody else be put to the trouble of a full-dress court-martial for something which is regarded as being simple enough for a reprimand ?

It is not a question of the reprimand.

Why should we go to the trouble of providing law to protect the individual ?

There is an answer to that, but I am not going to deal with it now.

What he is really asking for is to be sent before a court-martial so that the court-martial will decide whether he was guilty or not. That is the issue—not the reprimand.

If the charge is of a simple type, I cannot see any reason why the necessity to hold a court-martial should arise.

It is only a matter of ordinary common justice. An officer knows he has committed an offence. His commanding officer tells him that he proposes to administer a severe reprimand and he says : " Very well ", and accepts it; but he may think that he has been wrongly charged and convicted. He may say to the commanding officer: " Send me for trial by a court-martial", and the commanding officer may say: " No; I am going to reprimand you." A severe reprimand or a reprimand may hold that officer's promotion back for years.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister's point that we cannot have the processes abused—going for court-martial and expensive processes in relation to trivial matters. A man might do it just for " pig." On the other hand, there is a great deal—and any lawyer with any experience of criminal courts will hold the same view—in having some mechanism of appeal. Could the Minister consider something like this—an appeal to a higher commanding officer before the thing is confirmed? Suppose I am paraded before my battalion commander. That battalion commander and I may not have hit it off very well, and if he happened to be the commanding officer in the case, I might feel in those circumstances that that particular commanding officer was not likely to give me a fair crack of the whip. Could that not be met by providing for an appeal to a higher commanding officer? Remember that it would be used with discrimination. In other words, my suggestion is that if the authorised officer gives a reprimand summarily the accused would have the right of bringing the matter to the notice of somebody higher.

I can have that examined because I am confident that it would be so little used that it would not make very much difference. I am certain that any officer who found himself being merely reprimanded rather than being informed that he was for court-martial would be prepared to accept the reprimand, and the question of even wanting to appeal against it would hardly arise.

The Minister is right in 99 per cent. of cases, but it is just the odd case that might need meeting.

I accept that the number of officers who will avail of this is small, but if one thinks he has been wrongly charged and may be convicted he ought to have the right to say: " I want a body of officers to try this." It is generally accepted that a court-martial is an excellent tribunal. They give an accused a very fair trial and go into the matter very fully. They are generally officers of experience selected by the adjutant-general who are not connected in any way with the unit to which the accused belongs. If an officer thinks he is being dealt with unfairly and may be so convicted he should be allowed to elect to be tried by court-martial. The number of cases in which it would arise would be very small.

Mr. Brennan

Would you not be in favour of the Chairman's suggestion?

No; I am not in favour of it.

I would consider the suggestion of an appeal to a higher officer but I am not prepared to have the question examined as to whether an officer who has merely earned a reprimand should be able to force the State and the authorities to the trouble and expense of holding a full dress court-martial in respect of a matter which his own senior officers regard as of such a simple character that a reprimand will suffice.

I think the Minister has met the point fairly well.

I will press the amendment. It is not a question of the punishment; it is a question of the conviction ; and if the punishment is to be a bar to a man's promotion in future, it is a very serious punishment.

If there was an appeal to the brigade commandant or to some commandant outside the unit, it should be sufficient.

Mr. Brennan

I am afraid Deputy Cowan has no faith in human nature.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 1; Níl, 5.

Tá.

  • Cowan, Peadar.

Níl.

  • Minister for Defence.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 217:—

In subsection 3, paragraph (f), page 78, line 23, to delete " fifteen " and substitute " ten ".

Where the authorised officer is investigating a charge, I seek to have him limited to imposing payment of compensation to the extent of £10 instead of £15.

The Deputy has forgotten the fact that the value of money has changed. It is a very reasonable sum.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: " That Section 176 stand part of the Bill."

With regard to admonishments, I personally think that they should not be recorded against a man, that unless a man has an opportunity of some sort of trial there should be no record of it. I agree that in the working of the Army you need to have such a system, but if it is only a case that requires admonishment I think it should not be recorded on the man's file against him.

How else are you to know the value of the individuals in business or in the Army or in the Civil Service ? In the Civil Service, if a man is brought before a senior officer—as they often are—and admonished, it is recorded on the file. That is to show that in some particular way the individual has deserved an admonishment. The record is there at a later date if his promotion is being considered. As I said before, from my own practical experience over quite a number of years presiding at the meetings of the Council of Defence when promotions are being dealt with, I do not think there has been a case in which an admonishment recorded against an individual has caused him to be turned down.

Mr. Brennan

It is recorded all right, but never used against him ?

I am prepared to admit this, that the particular type of misdemeanour which brought about the admonishment could be such that it might affect the officer from the point of view of his not being put forward for promotion, but as far as consideration at the Council of Defence is concerned I have no recollection, at any time during all the years I have been there, of an admonishment preventing promotion when the officer was recommended for it.

That is a perfect answer to what I am putting forward. If it is not to count, why should it be recorded? In regard to keeping track of what is done in the case of public servants, I have some experience of that sort of thing and I know it can be very much abused also, like some of the cases that happen between officers in the Army. I hold that if the case is such that he is brought up for a minor offence and it only requires admonishment, there is no need for a record. There is no chief who is not going to know that that man is coming up for this sort of thing again and again, and ultimately he should be put on trial and given some sort of chance of defending himself, instead of it being put on record where he has no defence. I object very strongly against that and particularly if the Minister says it is not going to count. I think that vitiates the whole argument for recording. If it is to be recorded, the man is entitled to have his chance of making his case against it.

He has. I have said already that the man has ample opportunity of defending himself.

We have been told also here by people who have experience of it that they have not.

He may not, as he has no right to such an opportunity. He has a right to defend himself where he is properly charged.

That is the position, anyhow. I cannot add to what I have already said.

I certainly want to make my views clear on that.

I think the Committee's views have been expressed on it.

They are on record and I am quite sure that that will have effect. They will be read by the people who do the admonishing.

I question the legality of the matter.

It is not legal at all.

Question put, and agreed to.
Top
Share