'Deeply concerning': Defence Forces covering legal costs of accused officers at tribunal
(Left to right) Members of Women of Honour Yvonne O Rourke, Diane Byrne, Honor Murphy and Roslyn O Callaghan. The Women of Honour are currently seeking a judicial review of the Department of Defence’s decision to only fund on a regular basis its own team of lawyers and barristers and those working for the Defence Forces. File photo: Gareth Chaney/Collins
The Women of Honour abuse survivor group has described as “deeply concerning" an assurance given by the Defence Forces that the legal costs of officers accused of wrongdoing would be covered.
The has been shown a letter in which the Defence Forces assured the Association of Retired Commissioned Officers that their members would receive legal support if they had to appear before the Defence Forces Tribunal.
The assurance was given before any of the officers had even been notified by the tribunal legal team that they would be required to be witnesses.
The promise of support was made in October 2024 by then Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Sean Clancy, in response to questions around what support would be available to former officers likely to be called as witnesses.
The officers are understood to have included a number also referenced anonymously in the Independent Review Group Report of 2023, which detailed allegations of brutal and “sadistic” abuse of soldiers and included allegations of the rape of both male and female soldiers.
Read More
Diane Byrne, of the Women of Honour, said it is a concern that while their legal costs are so far not being covered on a regular basis, those of officers accused of abusing soldiers appear to have been covered.
She said: "The approach to funding and legal support continues to be deeply concerning. Institutions, senior figures, and even possible perpetrators have ongoing legal support publicly funded in real time.
“However, victims have no day-to-day funding or paid legal representation and are having to fight for a fair process. Any reimbursement that comes later does not address the reality that the work of engaging with the tribunal is happening now.
“Instead of focusing on recounting their experiences and assisting the tribunal to establish the truth, Women of Honour are having to focus on fair and equitable participation.”
Gavin Tobin, of the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors, said: “There is complete inequality of arms at the tribunal. Perpetrators’ legal costs are looked after, the victims’ costs aren’t. That is not fair.”
Mr Clancy gave his legal support assurance before any former officers were deemed to “qualify as a witness or as individuals at risk of an adverse finding" and therefore had no “immediate legal entitlement to representation”.
However, he told ARCO’s then president Brigadier General Séamus Ó Giolláin (Retd.): “It has been indicated to me, that as the tribunal determines relevant evidence and informs those who may be affected, the individuals you refer to may indeed move into the position of witnesses and could be at risk of adverse findings.
“At that juncture, their entitlement to legal representation will become pertinent, and the Defence Forces' legal team will make formal applications to the tribunal as necessary.
“Recognising the potential for future developments, the Defence Forces will regard these individuals as 'core participants' at this stage.
“It is assured that they will receive support and representation from the Defence Forces' legal team throughout the private investigative phase of the Tribunal.
“Should the situation change, the Defence Forces' legal team are prepared to apply for formal representation at the appropriate time in accordance with the Tribunal's process.”
The Defence Forces are committed to safeguarding the rights and interests of our personnel, both retired and serving where applicable, while adhering to the Tribunal's procedures, he added.
Since the letter, Defence Forces legal costs from the tribunal have risen from €2.8m in 2024 to €7.7m in 2025.
The Women of Honour are currently seeking a judicial review of the Department of Defence’s decision to only fund on a regular basis its own team of lawyers and barristers and those working for the Defence Forces.



