A soldier has won his appeal against his conviction at a military court-martial for sexual assault of a woman soldier, partly on the grounds that he had not been properly informed of his rights. The issue of whether there will be a retrial will be decided later.
The Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday quashed the man's conviction by the court-martial on the grounds that an interview with him had not been noted, and there was also a failure to inform him of his right to have a solicitor.
The man had been sentenced, to be discharged following the conviction. The appeal court also ruled that the name of the soldier and his alleged victim should not be made public.
Mr Justice Hardiman, presiding at the Court of Criminal Appeal and sitting with Mr Justice O'Neill and Mr Justice Murphy, said the question as to whether there would be a retrial would be considered on December 12th.
Presenting the appeal, Mr Martin Giblin SC said his client had not been informed of his right to have a solicitor. The onus had been on the Army to inform his client, who was of limited education and ability, about his rights.
Mr Justice Hardiman said that, in relation to whether they were required to inform the soldier that he had a right of access to a solicitor, the military police had taken the attitude: "We don't have to and we didn't."
In opposing the appeal, Mr Feargal Foley, for the DPP, said there was no requirement on the military police to inform him he had a right to a solicitor.