Ombudsman probes case of Army officer who endured ‘tortuous’ legal ordeal
The Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is investigating how Captain, later Commondant, Alan Kearney, was embroiled for years in a criminal investigation.
In august 2020, Captain Alan Kearney’s career in the Defence Forces was flying.
Over his 31 years of service, he had risen swiftly through the ranks. He had an exemplary record of service both at home and abroad with Unifil forces. There were other peaks to scale in the near future, and he was confident he was equipped to do so.
That month, events occurred in a different arm of the State, An Garda Síochána, which was to have a major impact on him, his family, and his career. He was to lose a coveted job he had been earmarked to fill.
A promotion to commandant, of which he was all but assured, was whipped away.
Much worse, he was to be arrested, questioned, and subjected to criminal charges and processes that dragged on for years.
Ultimately, Capt Kearney was vindicated. However, it came way too late for his career, and, he would say, at a horrendous cost to him and his family.
Earlier this year, his plight was referenced in a letter from the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, retired High Court judge Alan Mahon.
Capt Kearney, Mr Mahon wrote, had for two years been subjected to a series of criminal charges, “and these charges were ultimately, in effect, dropped by the prosecution authorities in circumstances where no evidence of wrongdoing was adduced before the military judge, nor was the complainant required to give evidence in his defence”.
This wasn’t a case of a defendant being found not guilty of crimes based on the evidence after his day in court.
At the end of a long and winding process, during which Capt Kearney’s career was slowly dismantled, there was absolutely no evidence produced to demonstrate why criminal charges were brought.
The Irish Examiner understands that what occurred is being investigated by the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. No such investigation is being conducted within the Defence Forces to determine how and why this happened to a highly decorated officer, and whether it says anything about how the force operates.
“Loyalty, respect, integrity, moral courage,” Capt Kearney told the Irish Examiner. “These are the stated values of the Defence Forces. But values are not what an institution proclaims, they are what it does when no one is watching. You learn the true character of an institution by how it treats its people at their most vulnerable.”
Alan Kearney joined the Defence Forces in 1989 as an apprentice armourer, the branch of the army that deals with weapons. He completed his time, and he rose through the ranks to be commissioned an officer.
He was still a lieutenant when appointed head of the Ordance Base Technical Stores (OBTS) in the Curragh, the largest weapon repository in the force.
Prior to that, the role had been filled by a commandant two grades above Capt Kearney’s. His appointment at such an early stage of his career reflected how highly he was thought of within the military.
He served in that position for the next decade, with a break for two years, during which he served overseas — including a stint as the aide de camp for the Unifil force commander in Lebanon. He was also promoted to captain.
His record, the ombudsman would later state, “has been quite remarkable and his achievements undoubtedly impressive”.
In August 2020, gardaí investigating a member of An Garda Síochána extracted Whatsapp messages between this member and Capt Kearney.
The garda member being investigated had previously served in the Defence Forces, and they had worked closely with Capt Kearney. The pair had a common interest in weapons.
This garda left the Defence Forces in 2018, later joining An Garda Síochána.
The following year, he made a series of protected disclosures about matters around the armoury in Garda HQ where he was serving. In August of that year, he was arrested and suspended.
Now, a year later, as part of an ongoing investigation of alleged theft of ammunition, these messages were interpreted by gardaí as being somehow incriminating of Capt Kearney.
A month after the Whatsapp messages were viewed, Capt Kearney was told that he was one of three members of the Defence Forces whom the gardaí considered “a person of interest” in their investigation.
The term here has no legal standing in this jurisdiction, unlike, for instance, a witness or a defendant.
Capt Kearney was not, at any point, interviewed by anybody in An Garda Síochána, which is highly unusual for somebody deemed to be of interest to an investigation.
When told that his name had come up in the garda investigation, Capt Kearny was surprised as he considered it unremarkable that people with a professional interest in weapons would be in communication with each other.
Still, it didn’t appear to amount to much at the time. He had a lot going on. He was in line for promotion to commandant, and he was pursuing the prestigious job of captain of the guard in the Houses of the Oireachtas — a post that was generally reserved for military personnel. This would be the pinnacle of his career in the military.
On March 27, 2021, he was selected as the preferred candidate for the role of captain of the guard.
Then, six weeks later, things began to fall apart.
On the morning of May 7, 2021, he was told that he was not going to be promoted, a move that had been all but assured. That afternoon, he was removed from his position as commander of the ordnance based technical stores and told he would require an escort if he wanted to visit it.
Four days later, his home was raided by gardaí at the request of the military police. When he inquired why this was done, the military police denied it had anything to do with them.
Later it was admitted that the gardaí had acted on its request. Nothing was found in the search.
The investigation being conducted by the military police was to determine whether Capt Kearney had stolen any ammunition or arms. The premise for this was the WhatsApp exchange he had with his former colleague and now garda member in the armoury unit.
None of the messages referenced any crime, or theft, or proposed theft, but some extracts were being viewed as potentially referencing a conspiracy, even though there was nothing explicit in any of it. Capt Kearney had explanations for the content of the messages.
Why Capt Kearney, a decorated officer, would engage at the height of his career in anything criminal does not seem to have informed any element of the investigation.
In June, he was ordered to attend an interview by the military police. He requested a postponement as his mother was in very bad health. The request was denied, but he didn’t attend, and his mother died three days later.
In September, a full stock check of the ordnance survey stores was conducted. Nothing was missing.
Two months later, the Houses of the Oireachtas cancelled his proposed appointment as captain of the guard. Issues around garda clearance were cited.
The cancellation was inevitable. Capt Kearney was being investigated for criminal matters. As far as he was concerned, there wasn’t even prima facie evidence of anything. In December, he launched a High Court action to prevent somebody else being appointed captain of the guard.
The military police investigation dragged on into 2022. In February of that year, Capt Kearney was placed on leave by the Defence Forces medical chief. He had issues that required surgery. The following month, his wife was diagnosed with cancer.
Around the same time, a series of 12 charges were drawn up against him and the next stage of a court martial, the summary investigation, was started.
If this investigation deems that there is a case to answer, the matter advances to a full court martial. At the summary investigation, the military person under investigation is present. The evidence, mainly through witnesses, is introduced, and it is open to him or her to question witnesses.
Capt Kearney was on sick leave and not in a position to attend. The summary investigation went ahead without him.
By then, the military police had discovered that, within the ordnance survey stores, there was ammunition that had been some time earlier officially earmarked for destruction. This consisted of 129 rounds of .303 ammo. This should have been destroyed and it wasn’t.
It was found in the stores and now was to be the basis for criminal charges.
What had started out as a major investigation into suspected unspecified theft had evolved into charges over a failure to strictly follow regulations in destroying ammunition that was no longer of use to the forces.
As part of the ongoing investigation, the ammo “evidence” was removed from the stores in the Curragh and taken to a military facility in Kilkenny to be stored.
Meanwhile, Capt Kearney made a complaint to the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces about the failure to promote him.
Ombudsman Alan Mahon issued his report on September 9, 2022. He stated that he agreed with the Defence Forces chief of staff that he, the chief of staff, was “entitled to consider the complainant is not fitted to fill an appointment to the rank of commandant where the complainant is facing determination of serious criminal charges in the foreseeable future”.
Mr Mahon’s decision made perfect sense. How could you promote a man with such a cloud hanging over him? Mr Mahon did, however, add that “if it transpires that either the charges are dropped, or following a trial are dismissed, the complainant can again seek the recommendation for his promotion”.
By then, things had got really bizarre in Kilkenny.
In April 2022, soldiers were instructed to move the evidential ammo to steel boxes. They discovered that the ammo was gone. Gardaí were contacted, and they began an investigation into this suspected theft.
Ammunition stolen from the Defence Forces would represent a very serious security breach.
Seven months later, it was discovered that there had been what the Defence Forces would later describe as an “inadvertent error”.
The ammo had been, all along, not just in the building, but in the same storeroom from where it was reported to be missing.
While the ammo was missing, the preparation of the case against Capt Kearney continued.
One strand of verifying the evidence involved a sworn statement from a Defence Forces member in which he stated that he had “witnessed” the ammo.
According to court documents, there was no date on this statement — which is highly unusual.
This leaves open the possibility that the statement could have been made during the seven months when the ammo was “missing”, which gives rise to a question as to how it could have then been “witnessed”.
In March 2024, two and a half years after Capt Kearney had launched what was for him an urgent legal action over the captain of the guard position, the High Court ruled on it.
Judge Cian Ferriter dismissed the claim. He cited the fact that the decision not to appoint him occurred when Capt Kearney was “the subject of an ongoing military police investigation into suspected criminal offences concerning army ammunition”.
The ruling made perfect sense. As far as the High Court judge was concerned, as with the Ombudsman of the Defence Fores, there was a cloud hanging over this man. The cloud so dark that it could not be expected he be promoted or appointed to a major position.
The court martial hearing was set for July 24, 2024. Days before it was due to begin, it became obvious that the prosecution was in some trouble. According to a report from the ombudsman, “it was apparent that particular items of evidence were unavailable”. All of the charges were about to be dropped.
This, at the end of a process that had seen Capt Kearney’s career, his expected promotion, and prestigious job all effectively wiped out. The court martial of a senior officer is highly unusual. It might have been expected that it would have been conducted with the utmost care and precision.
If the court martial hearing had gone ahead in any guise the extent of the mishaps, errors, possible denial of rights, would have been exposed.
The whole thing was conducted on the back of some Whatsapp messages which did not of themselves state anything explicit that was incriminating.
Capt Kearney and his legal team had a dilemma. If the charges were just dropped, the arcane disciplinary process in the Defence Forces would kick in. This would lead to further delays which could go on for years.
Capt Kearney’s solicitor suggested adding another minor charge to the charge sheet to which he would plead guilty.
This was accepted.
According to the ombudsman’s report, Capt Kearney “strongly contends that his decision to plead guilty to this charge was solely as an effort to end what had been for him, and his family, a torturous two and a half year ordeal”.
The charge was that he had in the stores “possession of service property not recorded on the Defence Forces Logistics Management System”. This referred to some gun sights that were no longer in use, which dated from before Capt Kearney had even been appointed commander of the stores in question.
The military judge overseeing the court martial is reported to have described the new charge as “an administrative matter”.
There was absolutely no allegation that the sights were in Capt Kearney’s personal possession or that the material had been stored away secretly. He received a reprimand and forfeiture of two days pay.
Crucially, if that was all that was ever at issue, it would never had advanced to a court martial and would not have affected his prospects of promotion or appointment to the Houses of the Oireachtas position.
Capt Kearney’s ordeal was finally over. He was, however, determined to get redress in some form. He complained again to ombudsman Alan Mahon, who compiled a second report. This time, in light of all that emerged, the report was completely at variance with the first one.
In the report, completed in December 2024, Mr Mahon reported that Capt Kearney’s solicitor had made a series of submissions to him on the plight of his client.
“These submissions are [and have been consistently so] highly critical of that prosecution process and make disturbing reading.”
He noted the high achievements that Capt Kearney had acquired during his career and went on: “Being the subject of serious criminal charges for well in excess of two years have caused him enormous stress and occasional ill health and, in the circumstances where these serious charges have been dropped, it is just and proper that his Defence Forces career now be fully rehabilitated.”
He concluded that Capt Kearney deserved not just to be promoted but to have it backdated.
“My recommendation that the complainant be promoted to commandant, and that this promotion be backdated to July 2022, is based on fairness and natural justice, both of which dictate, in my view, that the complainant should now be placed in the position hat he would have been in in July 2022 had these serious charges not been preferred against him.”
The Defence Forces resisted the recommendation.
Mr Mahon wrote to the chief of staff earlier this year to make the case again. He also wrote to the minister for defence about the matter.
The Defence Forces agreed to promote Capt Kearney to commandant.
However, it would only backdate the promotion by nine months.
Responding to the Irish Examiner, now Comdt Kearney said he is glad it is all over but angry at what his family in particular was, in his opinion, subjected to.
“When my mother died, when my wife fought cancer — our family’s lowest moments — that was when the Defence Forces chose to apply its maximum pressure,” he said in a statement.
“Their silence in the face of our distress was their answer. It was not a mistake, it was a strategy. A calculated, brutal withdrawal when we needed support the most. I learned that the signature of a profound betrayal is this: The weaponisation of silence. It is the specific cruelty of being shown that you and your suffering do not matter.
“My family was not just dismissed, they were used as leverage and then discarded by the very structure that promised to have our backs.”
Comdt Alan Kearney retired from the Defence Forces on July 19. He is now working abroad in the private sector.
A spokesperson for the Ombudsman of the Defence Forces replied to queries by stating that the office does not confirm or deny any complaints made to it.
The Irish Examiner understands that the office is investigating this case.
A spokesperson for the Defence Forces said it does not comment on individual cases.
“As with all such matters, the Defence Forces are committed to following due process and acting in accordance with established procedures and regulations,” they said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Defence said it does not comment on individual cases.
In response to a query as to whether the minister had contacted the defence forces over Comdt Kearney’s case following receipt of the letter about the case from the ombudsman, the spokesperson said: “The Ombudsman for the Defence Forces is independent in his role and function.”
The genesis of Alan Kearney’s travails was in the armoury section of An Garda Síochána.
In 2019, a garda working in the armoury made a series of protected disclosures about practices and issues that he said he witnessed. He had previously worked in the Defence Forces with Capt Kearney.
This garda was later arrested and charged with offences related to the possession of ammunition. Last July, Michael McDowell told the Seanad that this man “is facing criminal charges on indictment, which appear to be motivated by a desire to conceal abuses in the armoury section”.
Following McDowell’s address, Belfast solicitors KRW Law released a statement endorsing what the senator had said under privilege. They called for “increased scrutiny on serious issues around gardaí irregularities”.
“We act on behalf of a former serving garda officer, who acted as a whistleblower on serious irregularities within the armoury section of gardaí on defective holsters and other linked matters,” the statement read.
"Our client will fully contest the charges levied against him, and looks forward to a jury trial when he can give his account of serious internal wrongdoing.”
This garda has since resigned from the force, and he is awaiting trial on the charges.
He was first arrested in relation to these matters six years ago.
One of the issues that were included in the protected disclosures was that of defective holsters which were in use at the time. He raised concerns around the procurement of these holsters from a saddlery in Co Kildare and major safety fears.
A year later, in June 2020, a detective on duty outside the Israeli ambassador’s residence accidentally shot himself.
He was wearing one of the holsters.
The holster was dispatched to the National Garda Technical Bureau (NGTB) for examination.
The head of the NGTB was Detective Superintendent Brian O’Reilly. His career in many ways mirrored that of Comdt Alan Kearney in the Defence Forces. He was highly regarded and had been taking the role of acting chief super, which would almost definitely lead to promotion to the higher rank in the short term.
The bureau examined the holster and found that there were problems.
Last March in the Dáil, Labour frontbencher Alan Kelly revealed what happened thereafter.
“It was discovered by forensic experts attached to the Garda National Technical Bureau that the leather pistol holster issued to the member was so dangerously defective, the holster could actually engage the trigger and fire the weapon of its own accord,” Mr Kelly said.
“It was further identified by the ballistic experts that the holster was so poorly designed, the firearm could be removed from the holster with so-called retention strap fully fastened.”
It wasn’t just the bureau that was concerned about the holster. The Firearms Training Unit within the force was in correspondence with the training college in Templemore on the issue.
Five days after the Israeli embassy incident, an email sent from the latter to the former related: “As you are aware, this issue was raised before with [another officer] about this particular make of holsters and pouch.
“This softer style was supposed in both Sig and Walther [makes of firearms] configuration. It proved dangerous… I concur with your recommendation that this make of holster and pouch should be withdrawn for safety reasons.”
The following day, just before midnight on June 17, 2020, Detective Garda Colm Horkan stopped a man on a motorbike in the centre of Castlerea, Co Roscommon.
The man, Stephen Silver, was apparently driving erratically.
Just after the garda approached him, a struggle ensued. Det Horkan’s official firearm came loose from its holster and Silver managed to get his hands on it.
He fired up to 15 shots — at least four of which hit Det Horkan, — killing him. Silver then waited until gardaí arrived on the scene five minutes later. Silver is now serving a life sentence for murder.
Det Horkan’s holster was one of those acquired from the saddlery in Kildare.
Early the following morning, a detective from the Technical Bureau examined the murder scene. He put the holster in a bag but, for some reason, the holster was not set to the bureau.
This was highly unusual.
Following every shooting incident, it is the technical bureau that is charged with conducting ballistic and associated investigations. Not in this case.
Instead, the holster — but not the firearm or ammunition — was sent to another senior garda with an instruction to have it tested.
The reason for this is entirely unclear.
This garda did pass it on to a sergeant who had experience with firearms training, but they were not an expert in either ballistics or firearms.
The sergeant did not have access to the kind of laboratory conditions used in the technical bureau. He compiled a report suggesting that, while the holster was not ideal, neither did it represent any danger to gardaí using it.
This was contrary to the opinions expressed by others, as seen above, involved in firearms training.
Now, there were two conflicting reports on whether the holsters, which had raised concerns in various arms of An Garda Síochána, were actually safe.
The section with the expertise in examining these matters had deemed the holsters unsafe. Another opinion sought outside the technical bureau decided that they weren’t faulty as such.
If the holsters were definitively deemed to be unsafe, there would have been outrage in the ranks. Faulty equipment would be blamed for one garda shooting himself and another being murdered. At this point, a third opinion was sought by garda management.
A second report on the holster used by the garda at the Israeli residence was ordered. This was to be done by personnel in the garda armoury, the same unit which entered into a contract to acquire the holsters from the Kildare saddlery.
The Irish Examiner understands that no criticism was ever made of the technical bureau’s examination of the holster. Neither was there any suggesting that any individual garda in the bureau had erred, had any kind of conflict of interest, had done anything other than their professional duty, as per every other incident that they examined. Yet, a second report was ordered.
This was to be conducted by a unit that arguably was open to, at the very least, a perception of a conflict of interest.
There is no reason to believe that this second report was conducted other than with the utmost integrity.
The outcome was an opinion that the leather in the holster was more malleable than the model previously used, and there was an issue with a part of the stitching. Neither of these factors would render the holster dangerous in the manner that had been expressed by the technical bureau’s examination or the opinions offered by personnel in the firearms training unit.
So were the holsters safe? The experts routinely used within An Garda Síochána said no, but two separate opinions said yes.
It would have been open to management within the force to seek an external expert opinion. If they weren’t happy with the result from the technical bureau, there was nothing to stop sending the holster to its equivalent unit in the PSNI or one of the British mainland policing divisions. That wasn’t done.
The Irish Examiner understands that Detective Superintendent O’Reilly was extremely concerned with how the whole process had been handled.
His team had done their job. Nobody suggested there was any problem with the work. However, it was as if somebody didn’t like the result so other opinions were sought.
Supt O’Reilly made a protected disclosure about what he believed to be malpractice within the force. He soon found that he was unable to continue in work due, he claims, to what became an intolerable situation for him.
Last June, the High Court was told that he is now on half pay and has difficulties paying his mortgage. An Garda Síochána is claiming that his illness is “ordinary”, adding that is not attributable to anything to do with his job.
Mr Kelly, who has been following the case, believes that the superintendent’s issues arose directly from his concerns about the safety of equipment that not just he, but other gardaí, believed to be defective.
“It is abundantly clear that the concerns of those who spoke up about these defective leather pistol holsters were not welcome at the highest levels in An Garda Síochána,” Mr Kelly told the Irish Examiner.
“Those who attempted to push this issue up the reporting structure to safeguard their colleagues have been treated appallingly.”
In 2023, the garda commissioner Drew Harris confirmed to then justice minister Helen McEntee that all of the holsters in question had been withdrawn and shredded beyond use.
Last June, the Public Accounts Committee heard that the contract for the holsters was valued at €500,000.
There are parallels between the respective plights of Comdt Kearney in the Defence Forces and Detective Superintendent Brian O’Reilly in An Garda Síochána.
Both were subjected to major upheaval in their lives to a point where they could no longer continue to serve the State. Both had exemplary records and long service. No fault was ever found with the work of either. The common factor in their respective plights was the origins of what befell them in the armoury of An Garda Síochána, with which neither of them had any direct connection.
Meanwhile, a third individual who served in both the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána, and who made the protected disclosures about the armoury, is awaiting trial on ammunition charges six years after he was first arrested.
The investigation of the protected disclosures from the garda armoury has been questioned by a number of members of the organisation internally.
One of the early problems arose when the protected disclosures unit in An Garda Síochána sought the services of the renowned weapons expert, retired Lt Col Ray Lane.
The retired Defence Forces member is considered one of the foremost experts in this area.
The issues that had arisen were explained to him, and he agreed to help. However, when former garda commissioner Drew Harris was informed of Mr Lane’s retention, he is reported to have expressed himself opposed to it. One reason, according to sources, was that the commissioner didn’t want to bring in outside people.
The Irish Examiner understands Mr Harris and Mr Lane knew each other professionally from work carried out during the Troubles in the North.
The outcome was Mr Lane was told his services were no longer required, and he was paid a sum of money for any inconvenience caused.
The disclosures at issue raised a number of concerns about various practices. One of the most serious was an allegation that firearm parts were imported for a private club by a member of An Garda Síochána purporting to act in an official capacity.
The importation occurred in 2018. It involved a senior garda acting on behalf of a private gun club. The officer became aware that the gun club had a problem with a number of firearms.
Initial attempts to have them repaired with a firearm dealer were unsuccessful, and the dealer informed the club that the parts were not available in the country.
The officer, who did not have an official role in the club, took possession of the firearms and brought them in his vehicle to Garda HQ in the Phoenix Park. Transporting weapons in this manner is potentially a criminal offence.
Importation of such parts is strictly controlled and individual authorisation is always required. The minister for justice of the day and officials in the department would take any such request from An Garda Síochána on trust, as they would be highly unlikely to be familiar with the details of the firearm parts being requested.
The officer prepared the paperwork and presented it to the Department of Justice in July 2018. It was signed off on the basis that the parts were required by gardaí. The parts were then imported, and the cost was undertaken from the garda budget. The firearms were repaired and returned to the club.
Following the submission of the protected disclosure on the matter, an internal garda investigation was launched. In it, the senior garda at the centre of the case claims the parts were needed for guns to be used for training gardaí. However, no gardaí use these types of weapons. The investigation found that the guns made their way back to the gun club from Garda HQ. It confirmed that the gardaí bore the cost of the whole operation.
Despite what occurred, no disciplinary action is recommended in the report. Neither is there any recommendation that the matter should be investigated for any possible criminal offences.
The report also includes arresting details of partial mitigation. For instance, it suggests that the senior garda who transported the weapons from the gun club to Garda HQ and back might have been doing so legally under a 1925 Act if his purpose was indeed to use these guns for training gardaí.
The report does not detail any instances of training, nor does it locate any officers who were trained with these weapons.
The report also notes that the evidence of two gardaí on one side is in conflict with that from a central figure in the gun club, along with a firearms dealer who was aware of the whole matter. The Irish Examiner understands that this is one of a number of the matters arising from the protected disclosures that is being investigated by Fiorsú.
