asked the Minister for Defence if it is proposed to change the present system of legal justice in the Defence Forces.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Military Law System.
36.
Proposals to change the system of military law provided for under the Defence Act, 1954, are not at present under consideration.
In view of the fact that there is this problem in relation to the last question of double punishment——
The Deputy may not go back on a question already disposed of. We are now on Question No. 36.
I am referring to this question. Arising out of Question No. 36, is it proposed to change the present system of legal justice in the Defence Forces? There are cases where double punishment is inflicted on individuals and I want to ask the Minister to change the whole system. In addition, there is this collective punishment, which is not intended, and I just want to give the Minister an indication of what happens when a CO walks into a room——
The Deputy is citing a case. The Deputy may not use Question Time for making statements.
I am merely indicating to the Minister there are cases of double punishment and the whole question of the legal code——
The Deputy may not continue in this way. This is a matter that would arise appropriately on the Estimate.
I give notice that I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
The Deputy will have to give notice of his intention on the next sitting day.
I will.
Does the Minister not think it is a bit unfair that a soldier is not entitled to any military legal aid while the prosecution have the full benefit of all the legal powers available?
That is a separate question.
Would he consider reviewing the position?
It is a separate question.
This matter was dealt with at length by the Minister for Defence of the day, the late Deputy Oscar Traynor, during the proceedings of the Special Committee on the Defence Bill. The Minister stated that the matter was so important he submitted it for examination to a committee of three lawyers—one nominated by the Attorney General, a second by the Minister for Justice and the third by himself—and that they had advised him that a system of appeal from conviction by court martial was neither necessary nor desirable.
The Minister also referred to the extensive procedure being provided for the fullest consideration of charges against a soldier and the different steps by which, at every stage, mis-carriages of justice were guarded against. In particular, he mentioned that under the provisions of the Bill the findings and sentence of a court martial are not valid until confirmed by a confirming authority; a superior authority may, after a sentence has actually been confirmed, mitigate or remit the punishment or substitute a proper or a lesser punishment; certain sentences may also be suspended and eventually the punishment remitted; the Minister has power to quash the findings and sentence of a court martial where it appears to him that the proceedings were illegal or the accused was wrongfully convicted; the Minister may also direct a retrial; provision is made for the presentation of petitions by or on behalf of persons sentenced by court martial; the Minister gets the advice of the Attorney General as to any action which may be taken by him. The procedure regarding the presentation of petitions has worked well over the years.
That is not exactly what I had in mind, but is the Minister aware that a soldier has two choices: he can pick a civilian solicitor or an officer of his choice? The latter will have no legal qualifications——
That is a separate question.
All I know is that on various occasions when a soldier has been fined £5 on reprimand I have many times removed the reprimand so that, whatever about the £5, there will be nothing on his sheet to go against his promotion in future.