Defence Forces tribunal hears of shortcomings in complaints process

By Cillian Sherlock, Press Association

Mechanisms to report complaints within the Defence Forces had shortcomings or were implemented late, an expert has told a tribunal.

The Government established a Tribunal of Inquiry to examine allegations of sexual misconduct, bullying and discrimination in the Defence Forces after the recommendations of a report by an independent review group (IRG).

It is examining the effectiveness of the complaints processes in the Defence Forces concerning workplace issues relating to discrimination, bullying, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct – as well as the handling of dangerous chemicals.

The tribunal opened public hearings on Wednesday, with the first witness being a former Norwegian parliamentary ombudsman for the Defence Forces.

Captain Kjell Arne Bratli, also a former Norwegian soldier, provided analysis on the complaints processes available to Irish Defence Forces personnel over the period examined by the tribunal – 1983 to mid-2024.

The sheer scale of the task at hand cannot be overstated

The witness told the tribunal that procedures for handling complaints were “not fully adequate or appropriate” for the greater period of that 41-year period.

He said that the developments of complaints processes had been “crisis driven”.

Offering an overview of the seven distinct processes developed over the last 70 years, he said the existence of so many systems itself was evidence that no single mechanism was ever adequate to deal with the full range of complaints arising within the Defence Forces.

He described the proliferation of several processes as a symptom of systemic failure rather than a solution to it.

Mr Bratli said personnel had to deal with the complex challenge of navigating the complaints landscape as well as cultural barriers to reporting.

He said it was also a recurring structural weakness in the system that the chain of command retained a central role in most complaints processes – being the initial recipient of complaints, the investigator, and a precondition for access to external mechanisms.

He questioned whether the system was well-designed and whether the organisation could effectively self-regulate the most serious forms of misconduct.

On this question, notes prepared by Mr Bratli which were shown to the tribunal said the evidence before it suggested “it could not”.

In addition, Mr Bratli welcomed the development of a Defence Forces Ombudsman in 2005 as a “really good thing” – but said this was “late” compared with other countries and had limitations around time, its “reactive design” and “non-binding recommendations”.

He said none of the processes, including the ombudsman, provided a fully independent, proactively monitoring, systemically analytical oversight function – as seen in other countries such as Norway.

Mr Bratli’s report said the most consistent finding across all processes is the gap between what was formally required and what was experienced in practice by personnel.

The IRG report found members were aware of long-standing practices of reprisals, including pejorative comments and withholding of entitlements as well as physical assaults and unfounded accusations being sent to gardai.

Almost 90% of female respondents to the IRG said they had experienced some form of sexual harassment, while the review found a “discernible pattern of rape and sexual assault” in its analysis of participants’ contributions.

More than a third of respondents said they faced bullying within the Defence Forces.

On misogyny in the Defence Forces in general, different sources available to the IRG concluded that, at best, the Defence Forces “barely tolerates women” and, at its worst, “verbally, physically, sexually and psychologically abuses women in its ranks”.

Mr Bratli said that the IRG report in 2023 showed that the culture within the organisation had not kept pace with the formal procedural framework being substantially developed by 2015.

The witness’s report said that procedures that exist on paper but that are not used or trusted or are actively circumvented by institutional culture “do not constitute an adequate complaints system”.

Mr Bratli’s report posed the question about whether the system, in practice, provided personnel who had suffered harm with an accessible independent and effective means of seeking justice.

He said that, for most of the period under review, the “honest answer to the question is no”.

Wednesday’s hearing was led by the tribunal’s sole member Court of Appeal judge Ms Justice Ann Power.

Earlier in proceedings, Michael Cush, SC, for the tribunal, said it had reviewed 226,000 pages of materials.

He said it found it necessary to investigate every complaint file arising from every complaint made over the 41-year-period, which he described as a “massive task”.

He explained that there had been hundreds of interviews and the process remains ongoing.

Mr Cush told those gathered that other tribunals had focused on single events, people, or narrower timeframes and said “the sheer scale of the task at hand cannot be overstated”.

He said the tribunal may therefore exercise discretion in calling witnesses and decide a sample of evidence is sufficient to make conclusions.

The tribunal is not tasked with investigating or determining whether complaints are well-founded, and cannot make findings of a criminal nature against individuals.

Alleged perpetrators of abuse will be granted anonymity under the processes of the tribunal.