The Supreme Court yesterday reserved judgment on an appeal by Mr Donal de Roiste, a brother of the former presidential candidate, Ms Adi Roche, against a High Court ruling that he cannot proceed with his challenge to his being compulsorily retired from the Army more than 30 years ago.
In the High Court in June 1999, Mr Justice McCracken dismissed the proceedings taken by Mr de Roiste on the grounds that they were out of time.
He said that Mr de Roiste, although having undoubtedly suffered a traumatic experience, was not so affected that he was unable to issue the proceedings for such a lengthy period.
Mr de Roiste (55), of Cabhsa Inismhor, Ballincollig, Co Cork, was told of his compulsory retirement on June 25th, 1969.
In 1998 he brought High Court proceedings against the Minister for Defence and the State.
The High Court ruled that Mr de Roiste's proceedings should be dismissed because they were not taken in time.
In dealing with a preliminary issue regarding delay, Mr Justice McCracken said he was not concerned with the merits of the case, except where they might affect the question of delay.
He added that Mr de Roiste had made the case that he was interrogated at length over a period and had, without any warning, received a letter stating his retirement. He was given 12 hours to leave his barracks.
He was told by his father that he would not be welcome, then or ever, to return home.
He emigrated in 1971 and worked on and off in Britain and the US.
In autumn 1997, when his sister was a candidate in the presidential election, Mr de Roiste submitted that the whole episode of his retirement had been resurrected by the media. He found that extremely traumatic.
Mr Justice McCracken said he did not doubt that was the case. But, in relation to the period 1969-1997, Mr de Roiste had given virtually no evidence to explain his inaction regarding his compulsory retirement.
In an affidavit, Mr de Roiste said the termination of his military service caused major upset and trauma in his life.
His father's prohibition on his returning to the family home had continued ever since.
For years after his retirement he was extremely upset and prone to nightmares and feelings of paranoia. He still suffered night mares.
Following his retirement, he had no financial resources and lost all self-esteem and the ambition and drive he had held as a commissioned officer.
Only recently, with the assistance of a counsellor, had he been able to address the whole episode and the effect on his life.
Yesterday's appeal hearing was before the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane; Ms Justice Denham and Mr Justice Fennelly.