Defence Forces Ombudsman Mr Justice Alan Mahon has written to Tánaiste Simon Harris recommending the promotion of an army officer following the conclusion of a court martial process against him.
The letter to Mr Harris, who is also Minister for Defence, follows two official reports by the retired appeal court judge stating the career of the officer, who he describes as a highly-regarded member of the Defence Forces, should be “rehabilitated” and that he should be granted promotion without delay.
The first report was sent to Defence Forces Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Seán Clancy, in December 2024. The second was sent in January 2025.
Military management almost always acts on the recommendations of the Defence Forces Ombudsman, although it is under no obligation to do so.
We are PhD researchers with advice for US colleagues: Don’t come to Ireland
The contrast between Kneecap charges and flag-festooned Northern Ireland is absurd
Irish military flight operations to move to part-time and may soon cease at Air Corps base
‘Waking up in hell’: Dublin family subject to arson attack in case of mistaken identity
In the usual course of events, an officer‘s commanding general sends a recommendation for promotion to the chief of staff, who in turn sends it to the Minister of Defence for formal approval.
It is understood that in this case, the general officer commanding the officer‘s formation has recommend his promotion.
The officer‘s name was not on the most recent list of promotion instruments signed by Mr Harris earlier this month, despite Mr Justice Mahon’s representations that he be promoted immediately and that the promotion be backdated to July 2024.
Late last year, the officer was told he was not being promoted, despite scoring highly on the relevant exam. Instead, he was told he was being placed on 12 months’ “probation”, after which his promotion application would be reviewed.
The officer was later informed this probation period had been reduced to six months, a period which has now expired.
In 2022, the officer, who cannot be identified due to strict reporting restrictions imposed by the judge in this court martial, was accused of nine offences, including stealing military equipment and ammunition.
Following lengthy legal proceedings, which saw charges being dropped and redrafted a number of times, the officer pleaded guilty to a single charge of omitting to record two historic items of military equipment that had been in the military stores for 30 years.
As noted in one of the ombudsman’s reports, the officer‘s legal team said he did this to bring an end to the “fabricated debacle”.
The military judge imposed a reprimand and fined him three days’ pay, the lowest possible punishment on the scale.
At the time the military judge described it as a “disciplinary matter” rather than a criminal charge.
In his investigation report filed last year, Mr Justice Mahon noted submissions from the officer‘s lawyers had been “highly critical” of the military justice process. He said these submissions make for “disturbing reading”.
Mr Justice Mahon noted the officer satisfied all conditions for appointment to a senior rank in 2022 when he first applied for promotion. His conduct was recorded as “exemplary”, he had finished eighth in the promotion competition and had passed the medical and fitness exams.
In response to queries, a Defence Forces spokesman said it does not comment on “individual cases of currently serving personnel. The Department of Defence said it would be inappropriate to comment on confidential reports.
