An Army officer has been fined three days’ pay and been reprimanded after pleading guilty to a charge of having unauthorised military equipment in his possession at the Curragh Camp three years ago.
The soldier with over 30 years’ service in the Defence Forces, who cannot be named, was originally accused of a total of 12 offences including four counts of the alleged stealing of military equipment including ammunition.
At an earlier sitting of a summary court martial in May, the defendant had pleaded not guilty to 10 charges, while two other counts were dismissed as they were statute barred.
Extensive reporting restrictions on the case were directed by military judge Colonel Michael Campion, on foot of an application by the Director of Military Prosecutions “in the interest of State security and that of the Defence Forces".
They include a ban on identifying the name or rank of the defendant as well as any details of the military equipment at the centre of the case.
Following lengthy legal argument, a nolle prosequi (no prosecution) was entered on one further charge, while a fourth charge was also dismissed.
Ultimately, a nolle prosequi was also entered on the eight remaining charges by the prosecution and the accused pleaded guilty to a fresh charge of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline contrary to Section 168 of the Defence Act 1954.
The offence related to the unauthorised possession of two pieces of military equipment at the Curragh Camp on April 27th, 2021.
The court martial heard that the offence came to light following an inspection by military police of weapons and military equipment stored at the Curragh Camp.
The military judge, Colonel Michael Campion, said the defendant had no authorisation to be holding such equipment in the manner in which they had been found by military police.
No evidence was heard in the case which was due to hear from a number of Garda witnesses who investigated related matters in a trial that was scheduled to last two weeks before a guilty plea was entered.
At a sentencing hearing in McKee Barracks in Dublin on Tuesday, Col Campion stressed that the Section 168 offence was not a criminal charge but more a disciplinary matter.
However, the judge said the need to maintain discipline and operational effectiveness within the Defence Forces was the reason why court martials differed from civilian courts.
Col Campion said the status of the military equipment at issue, which had been out of service for 20 years, was “unclear” but that any unregulated storage of such items was “a very serious matter".
While he had not received any explanation for “this state of affairs,” the judge accepted the defendant did not intend to use the equipment “for malign purposes".
However, he said aggravating facts in the case included the breach of trust by a person in a position of responsibility.
Col Campion said the wrongdoing was also premeditated by an experienced officer who had completed six overseas tours.
He said the subsequent investigation had also placed a significant drain on the resources of the Defence Forces as well as causing disruption to his own unit as well as other military personnel.
The judge acknowledged that the accused had entered a guilty plea, albeit after the trial had started.
He also noted both oral and written character references that had been presented in court which documented the defendant’s competence, reliability and work ethic as well as his expertise in historical artefacts and weapons.
While the army officer had experienced health issues since he became the subject of a military investigation, Col Campion remarked that he was “the author of his own misfortune".
He accepted the offence was “at the lower end of seriousness".
He noted the defendant had qualified for promotion to a senior rank, but he had not been certified for promotion by the Defence Forces chief-of-staff as a result of the court martial proceedings.
The judge said he believed the offence warranted a fine of seven days’ pay and a severe reprimand but reduced the punishment to a fine of three days’ pay and a reprimand which he said should be regarded as “a sharp rebuke".
