Defence Forces complaints process should be independent of military command, say officers

RACO deputy general secretary Colonel Derek Priestly said the Defence Forces complaints process would work better if officers didn’t have to investigate their own soldiers, and if the process was 'externalised'.

Much of the Defence Forces complaints process should be "externalised" and run by people outside the chain of military command, according to the Representative Association of Commissioned Officers.

On the second day of the Defence Forces Tribunal, RACO deputy general secretary Colonel Derek Priestley said too few officers are qualified to handle complaints within the Defence Forces. 

He also said his members are frequently exasperated when ordered to investigate allegations against soldiers, regardless of their rank. “Most would want to do their best but they would express concerns that they can’t," he said.

There are also issues around impartiality, Col Priestley said, with officers very often knowing individuals they are ordered to investigate.

In answer to questions from Ms Justice Ann Power, he admitted officers tasked with handling complaints also often just don’t have the time to investigate them — “on top of everything else”.

He said there is also “a lack of training, a lack of manpower and lack of experience” as far as the complaints process is concerned.

Col Priestley also said those who make complaints have to deal with “a lack of feedback”, and that this is one of the biggest problems with the process. He said: “Many don’t know what comes of their complaint. 

There is a ‘no feedback loop’, and that is definitely a problem. 

He told tribunal senior counsel Niall Beirne that RACO has "frequently" raised its members’ concerns around the way the complaints process works with the Defence Forces and the Department of Defence.

He was asked if recommendations made in the 1990 Gleeson Commission Report that enlisted personnel should be able to express views related to grievances outside the chain of command were acted on. He said that he has “no knowledge” of the extent to which this was acted on.

But he said there is no doubt that “better streamlining is needed” for the current complaints process to be able to work better.

Mr Beirne asked Col Priestley if his members were able to recuse themselves from being involved in investigations if they knew those either making the complaint or being complained about, and he said they could ask but their requests would not necessarily be acted on.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

Col Priestly said the Defence Forces complaints process would work better if officers didn’t have to investigate their own soldiers, and if the process was “externalised”.

At the moment, he said, it is too time-consuming, and the current system leans too much in favour of “keeping matters as low level as possible and informal as possible”.

He said: “The default is to keep it informal. Even in the area of abuse, there is consideration (given) to deal with it informally, and this slows it down.” 

He added that “ideally” there should be an external panel of experienced people who understand how to deal with complaints. Col Priestley said RACO would take the view that much of the handling of complaints would be better if “they were externalised”.

Senior counsel Louis Masterson, acting on behalf of a large number of witnesses and acting on instruction from solicitors Coleman Legal, asked him if RACO has ever recommended to the Defence Forces that the complaints process should be externalised.

He said yes, the organisation has previously raised this in the conciliation committee meetings section in advance of the March 2023 Independent Review Group (IRG) report. He said: “Externalising at this time would be a good thing.”