A highly regarded Army officer who was the subject of a long-running prosecution by military justice authorities has been told he will not be promoted for at least a year, despite a recommendation from the Defence Forces Ombudsman.
The ombudsman, retired appeal court judge Mr Justice Alan Mahon, said in an investigation report earlier this month that the officer should be promoted after military justice authorities were forced to drop the various charges against him five months ago.
However, the day after the report was sent to the Department of Defence and military authorities, the officer was told he will not be promoted for at least a year. In the meantime, he will be subject to a 12-month probationary period which will include quarterly performance assessments and oversight by a senior officer.
Military sources described this as an unusual move and said there is no provision for such probationary periods in military regulations. They said it is also unusual for the Defence Forces not to act on a recommendation from the ombudsman.
It is not clear if the decision to delay the officer’s promotion was taken before or after the ombudsman’s report.
In response to queries on Friday, a Defence Forces spokesman said it could not comment on the matter as it is still considering the ombudsman’s investigation report.
In 2022, the officer was accused of nine offences, including stealing military equipment and ammunition. These charges were later withdrawn and replaced with another 12 charges. This new charge sheet was also withdrawn and replaced with another sheet containing 12 counts.
The court martial began in July 2024 before military judge Col Michael Campion. The officer denied all charges.
The man’s legal team told the ombudsman that the prosecution “had difficulty” in proceeding with any of the charges. Some were struck out and others “were the subject of wholesale amendments to the point of realisation that the trial was about to collapse”.
The officer’s legal team said in order to bring a timely end to “this fabricated debacle”, he agreed to plead guilty to a single summary charge of omitting to record two historic items of military property which had been in the military stores for 30 years.
Col Campion imposed a reprimand and fined him three days’ pay. The ombudsman noted this was the lowest possible punishment on the scale and that the offence stood in “stark contrast” to the original charges.
At the time the military judge described it as a “disciplinary matter” rather than a criminal charge.
In his report, Mr Justice Mahon noted the officer’s “exceptional” and “exemplary record”. He also noted submissions from the officer’s lawyers had been “highly critical” of the military justice process. He said these submissions make for “disturbing reading”.
The officer, who cannot be identified due to strict reporting restrictions imposed by the judge in his court martial, applied for promotion to a senior rank in 2022.
He passed his medical exams and finished eighth in the promotion competition but the Chief of Staff refused to endorse his promotion due to the then outstanding charges.
Mr Justice Mahon said in his report that now the charges have been dropped, it would be an “injustice” to delay his promotion for any longer.
Mr Justice Mahon said the two-year process has caused the officer “enormous stress and occasional ill health”.
He said “in the circumstance where these serious charges have been dropped it is just and proper that his Defence Forces career now be fully rehabilitated”.
