Tweet
15/01/04
By Caroline O’Doherty
BREACHES of discipline in the Defence Forces increased by over 70% last year, resulting in more than 1,600 charges being brought against members of the Army, Navy and Air Corps.
In total, 1,636 charges were dealt with summarily, or without recourse to trial, through the military’s internal disciplinary procedures between January and December 2003, resulting in penalties ranging from a warning to 28 days’ detention.
In addition, nine members accused of some of the most serious offences were tried and convicted by court martial, resulting in three discharges, two detentions, two fines, one demotion and one loss of seniority within rank.
Figures for 2002 were only available for the first 10 months of that year during which there were eight court martials, resulting in one discharge, and 789 summary charges, working out at an average of 79 per month compared to 136 per month last year, an increase of 72%.
The size of the force remained constant at approximately 10,500 members in the two years.
Spokesman for the military, Commandant Brian Cleary, insisted discipline was not a major problem in the Defence Forces but said he could not immediately account for the increase in charges as last year’s figures had just been compiled.
“It certainly would appear that there is a large discrepancy between the two years but we would need to have a closer examination of the records before we could put forward an explanation,” he said.
A military source said some of last year’s increase might be attributable to an increase in overseas missions and a sizeable intake of new recruits. The settling down period which followed sometimes threw up personnel who had difficulties adjusting to strict new regimes, the source said.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Michael Smith had no comment to make, saying discipline enforcement was a matter for the Defence Forces rather than the Department of Defence.
The incidents that gave rise to the 1,636 charges last year were breaches of various sections of the Defence Acts, which cover offences such as disobedience to a senior officer, ill-treatment of inferiors, neglect of duty, drunkenness, theft, damage to property and misuse of vehicles, vessels or aircraft.
The military source said the number of charges did not equate to the number of personnel in trouble as most incidents would give rise to more than one charge. It was estimated about 800 individuals were charged in 2003.
Trials by court martial in 2003 resulted from breaches of four sections of the Defence Acts: violence towards a superior officer, absence without leave, conduct contrary to good order and discipline and “offences punishable by ordinary law” which can include any serious offence normally tried in civilian courts.
By Caroline O’Doherty
BREACHES of discipline in the Defence Forces increased by over 70% last year, resulting in more than 1,600 charges being brought against members of the Army, Navy and Air Corps.
In total, 1,636 charges were dealt with summarily, or without recourse to trial, through the military’s internal disciplinary procedures between January and December 2003, resulting in penalties ranging from a warning to 28 days’ detention.
In addition, nine members accused of some of the most serious offences were tried and convicted by court martial, resulting in three discharges, two detentions, two fines, one demotion and one loss of seniority within rank.
Figures for 2002 were only available for the first 10 months of that year during which there were eight court martials, resulting in one discharge, and 789 summary charges, working out at an average of 79 per month compared to 136 per month last year, an increase of 72%.
The size of the force remained constant at approximately 10,500 members in the two years.
Spokesman for the military, Commandant Brian Cleary, insisted discipline was not a major problem in the Defence Forces but said he could not immediately account for the increase in charges as last year’s figures had just been compiled.
“It certainly would appear that there is a large discrepancy between the two years but we would need to have a closer examination of the records before we could put forward an explanation,” he said.
A military source said some of last year’s increase might be attributable to an increase in overseas missions and a sizeable intake of new recruits. The settling down period which followed sometimes threw up personnel who had difficulties adjusting to strict new regimes, the source said.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Michael Smith had no comment to make, saying discipline enforcement was a matter for the Defence Forces rather than the Department of Defence.
The incidents that gave rise to the 1,636 charges last year were breaches of various sections of the Defence Acts, which cover offences such as disobedience to a senior officer, ill-treatment of inferiors, neglect of duty, drunkenness, theft, damage to property and misuse of vehicles, vessels or aircraft.
The military source said the number of charges did not equate to the number of personnel in trouble as most incidents would give rise to more than one charge. It was estimated about 800 individuals were charged in 2003.
Trials by court martial in 2003 resulted from breaches of four sections of the Defence Acts: violence towards a superior officer, absence without leave, conduct contrary to good order and discipline and “offences punishable by ordinary law” which can include any serious offence normally tried in civilian courts.
Comment