Written Answers. - Freedom of Information.
Jack Wall
Ceist:
118
Mr. Wall
asked the
Minister for Defence
if he will make available files from his office to a person (details supplied) seeking the files in order that he can undertake to clear his name and any outstanding issues that need clarification in relation to his position.
[14940/02]
The person in question applied to the military authorities in May 1998, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, for access to copies of all documents in relation to his retirement from the Permanent Defence Force and in relation to his period of service in the Permanent Defence Force.
The military authorities issued their decision on the application on 12 June 1998. They advised him that the records sought did not come within the scope of relevant provisions of the FOI Act except in so far as the request related to "personal information" as provided for in the Act. In this regard he was advised that he could have access to all personal information contained in his file for the period in question.
In accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act, the individual, through his legal representatives, exercised his right to appeal the decision to the designated FOI internal appeals officer in the Defence Forces. The appeal was considered by the relevant officer who upheld the initial decision. This decision was issued in writing to the applicant's legal representatives on 20 July 1998. Copies of the records which were deemed by the military decision makers to come within the scope of the FOI Act were forwarded to his then legal representatives in July 1998. When conveying his decision in relation to the internal review of the decision, the internal appeals officer advised the applicant of his statutory right of further appeal to the information commissioner, an independent officer with statutory powers to review decisions made by public bodies in relation to FOI applications.
In July 1998 an appeal was lodged in this case with the Office of the Information Commissioner. Such appeals are a matter for that office. The case was suspended in July 1998 at the request of the applicant's then legal representatives. The case was discontinued by the information commissioner's office in 1999 due to the subsequent non-pursuance of the matter by the individual concerned and his legal representatives at that time.
On 17 July 2001 the individual made a further FOI request to the military authorities in relation to the records regarding his period of cadet training. These records were released in full by the military authorities. The applicant submitted an internal appeal in relation to the decision on this application. He then was advised by the internal appeals officer that all records in relation to his period of service as a cadet had been released. The applicant has now submitted an appeal on this decision to the information commissioner.
The individual concerned was retired, by the President, in June 1969 on the advice of the Government. The retirement was effected pursuant to section 47(2) of the Defence Act, 1954, and paragraph 18(1)(f) of Defence Force Regulations A.15, which provide that an officer may be retired “in the interests of the service”.
The individual's continued assertions that the reasons for his retirement were never made clear to him are difficult to comprehend given the facts of the case. Specifically, prior to his retirement, the person concerned would have been made fully aware, in some considerable detail, of the circumstances giving rise to his retirement in June 1969. He was afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised and failed to do so. He was interviewed by officers of the intelligence section of the Army on three separate occasions in April 1969 in relation to a number of serious matters which had come to their attention.
At the third of these interviews on 30 April 1969 the person in question volunteered to sub mit a statement in relation to the matters raised but did not subsequently do so. Given the serious nature of the situation presented to the military authorities they were of the opinion that to retain him in service would be contrary to the interests of the Defence Forces and the State.
The Deputy Judge Advocate General was requested to advise on the matter. He conducted a personal interview at his office with the officer concerned on 28 May 1969. The DJAG informed the officer that he had been asked to advise the general staff in relation to the case. He said he wished to give the officer concerned an opportunity to submit any statement he wished to make in relation to the very serious issues which had been raised in the April interviews. The officer advised the DJAG that, following the April interviews, he had consulted a solicitor who undertook to correspond with the military authorities on his behalf. The DJAG informed him that no such correspondence had been received.
The DJAG took the officer through the issues raised in the April interviews, explained the gravity of the situation, advised him to consider the situation, and arranged a further meeting for the following day at which the officer was to submit a statement. The officer raised the question as to whether he could consult his solicitor and the DJAG made it clear to the officer that there was no objection to such a course of action. When the officer returned the following day, 29 May 1969, he then advised the DJAG that he would not in fact be making a statement.
Given the very serious nature of the situation presented to the military authorities, and in the absence of any response from the individual in question to the matters put before him, they were of the opinion that it would be contrary to the interests of the Defence Forces and the State to retain him in service.
A decision to retire an officer "in the interests of the service" is only taken for the most compelling reasons. Given that the Government decision and advice to the President concerned military security, I can say that I am satisfied that the matter was handled in an entirely appropriate and proper manner in accordance with the relevant Defence Force regulations. The decision to recommend his retirement was taken only after very detailed and due consideration.
