A former Army officer has failed to convince the Supreme Court to allow him challenge a decision to retire him compulsorily from the Army more than 30 years ago.
In 1998 the High Court ruled that Mr Donal de Roiste (55), a brother of the 1997 presidential candidate, Ms Adi Roche, could not pursue a legal action against the Minister for Defence because of the "inordinate delay" in seeking to challenge the decision to retire him made on June 27th, 1969.
The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed Mr de Roiste's appeal against the High Court ruling.
In an affidavit Mr de Roiste, who drives a school bus, said a letter from the adjutant general in 1969 had stated he was being retired "in the interests of the service". He was given no other reason for his purported "retirement" and no opportunity to make representations.
He said he was never given the names of anyone making allegations against him. He had requested a court-martial, if there was any charge or allegation against him, but was told that was not being considered.
He said the impression had been created that he was associated with subversive activities.
Delivering the Supreme Court decision the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said Mr de Roiste had said he was arrested by a superior officer a day after he had supervised a sale of used Army equipment at Clancy Barracks, Islandbridge. He was given no reason for his arrest and was interrogated by relays of Army personnel.
He had said the interrogation was oppressive and he was shouted at and threatened.
The Chief Justice said Mr de Roiste believed he might have confessed to stealing hubcaps from one of the vehicles at the auction. Following this he was returned to Athlone barracks, but no charge was made against him. He was interrogated over the next few months and then assigned to Boyle FCA.
The effect of his dismissal, Mr de Roiste had said, was that he was unable to obtain work in the State and was forced to emigrate. He obtained temporary positions in Britain and the US and, since returning to Ireland, had been working on a part-time basis on a limited wage.
The Chief Justice said an Army commandant had said in an affidavit that on April 21st, 1969, a report to the Director of Intelligence identified Mr de Roiste as being engaged in activities which potentially constituted a threat to the security of the Defence Forces and the safety of its members.
Arising from this he was interviewed by officers of the intelligence section. At a second interview Mr de Roiste had admitted knowing and associating with people who he was aware had been involved, and continued to be involved, in criminally subversive activities.
The Chief Justice said Mr de Roiste had attributed the delay in bringing proceedings to the trauma he suffered as a result of being discharged. However, that of itself was not a factor which justified his not taking action for nearly 30 years.
The costs of Mr de Roiste's proceedings are to be paid by the State.