asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a statement on the result of the High Court decision on 17th December, 1975, relating to the discharge of a member of the Defence Forces (name supplied) and on the comments (details supplied) made by the Court.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - High Court Decision.
5.
An appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision in this case has been lodged.
The judge on that occasion indicated that the discharge of Private Gleeson constituted a denial of natural and constitutional justice. Could the Minister indicate if there were other personnel discharged from the Defence Forces on the same basis previously because it would seriously affect the gratuity of short-service personnel? If there is to be an inquiry as a result of the High Court case, would the Minister let us know the outcome?
Pending a decision by the Supreme Court the matter is sub judice and discussion of the case would not be in order.
Question No. 6.
May I ask the Chair to relate the reason why this question was allowed to appear on the Order Paper when it affects a matter which is clearly sub judice when a matter I raised last week which was not then sub judice was not permitted?
It would have been disallowed if my office had been informed that the matter was sub judice. We were unaware of the matter.
In that event, were steps taken by the Minister to whom I submitted the question, the Taoiseach in this case, to inform your office that the matter was sub judice last week?
Wait. The Ceann Comhairle wants to say something.
I said already that my office was not aware that the matter was sub judice.
In that event was your office given information by the Taoiseach last week to the effect that the other matter was sub judice?
On a point of order, are we taking today's Questions or last week's Questions?
This is a very relevant matter.
It is all exposed now.