Upon hearing about the alleged cases brought to light by ‘The Women of Honour’ on RTÉ, Ireland’s first Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, Paulyn Marrinan Quinn SC, writes that it greatly upset and concerned her to think that female members had suffered these experiences – at all – and that such alleged wrongdoings were not made known to her under her ‘watch’.
When I was appointed Ireland’s first Ombudsman for the Defence Forces in September 2005, under the provisions of the Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004, for which there had been widespread support as it made its way through the Dail, it was a ‘good news story’.
Ireland was now taking a lead in overseeing fair procedures, accountability, and the much-needed transparency to win the members ‘essential trust and confidence in the complaint handling processes and procedures to protect them from actions that adversely affected them.
The legislation was described as ‘robust’ and received a lot of media coverage; the ODF was “a first” in this part of the world with only Norway, Germany and Canada having a designated Military Ombudsman. Even before I had office premises, there were requests from a range of people who wanted to discuss the scope and powers of this new Office with what was described as “groundbreaking legislation”.
Some EU accession States and others showed interest; South Korea’s Embassy visited with their National Ombudsman; South Africa sent a delegation including their Chief of Defence Staff. Their Minister of Defence had requested me to review their draft Military Ombudsman legislation in advance of our meeting.
We were requested to provide capacity building for many States by DCAF (then described as the ‘Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces’). We were requested to join the OSCE/ODIHR Expert Group tasked to draw up the ‘Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel’ to be launched in 2008, as the concept of the ‘Citizen in Uniform’ was emerging and gaining respect.
When I had applied for the job, the research literature referred to an Office of independent oversight of military administrative matters as a ‘democratic corrective,’ some went further describing it as a ‘democratic imperative’. To have been part of this ground-breaking initiative was an honour because the establishment of the Office of Ombudsman held out hope for transparency, in real terms, in the treatment of members of the Defence Forces.
It aimed to improve the efficiency and fairness of the existing Redress of Wrongs (RoW) system by providing members with a new right to an appeal, from a finding by the Chief of Staff in their complaints, to an Office independent of the Chain of Command and the Department of Defence.
Whereas we can endeavour to avoid grounds for complaints arising, we know that, through human error, maladministration may arise, but also that more serious breaches of codes of conduct and undesirable practices may occur.
Human nature being what it is, we may be unable to prevent these entirely, but it is well within our power to ensure that accessible and effective complaint handling processes are in place to shine an independent light on the root causes, identify the adverse effects on the victims, provide support, and call the perpetrators to account in a timely manner. This cannot be overstated: robust powers of oversight prevent any lapse or detour around this commitment.