A retired Army commandant has told the High Court he was a "significant witness" to events in 1969 which led to the dismissal of a fellow officer. But despite this, he was refused a meeting with the Judge Advocate General when a review of the dismissal documents concerning that officer, Lieut Dónal de Róiste, was conducted in 2002.
For 36 years, Mr de Róiste (60), Cabhsa Inismhór, Ballincollig, Co Cork, has claimed he was wrongly dismissed from the Army and wrongly labelled a subversive. He has unsuccessfully challenged his retirement "in the interests of the service" in previous High Court proceedings.
This time he seeks to quash the most recent review of his dismissal by the Judge Advocate General, Ms Oonah McCrann SC, who was asked in 2002 to review Defence Forces and Department of Defence files on the decision.
In her report to the Minister, Ms McCrann stated that while it was not possible to say if there had been a breach of fair procedures in the conduct of the Army's 1969 inquiry, she found "the merits of the case may well have resulted in the retirement" of Mr de Róiste and advised there was no "practical or substantial benefit" in holding an oral inquiry into the matter.
The report said it seemed from a handwritten memorandum of April 22nd, 1969, that a "confidential source" had reported that Mr de Róiste was in the company of the Dublin IRA splinter group on April 16th-17th, 1969 and discussed an auction of Army vehicles at Clancy barracks with a Mr X.
The judge advocate's review was established on July 2nd, 2002. The previous day, Mr de Róiste claims he was told he was entitled to Army documents but then discovered the Minister had decided not to make them available until the inquiry's conclusion. He claims he was entitled to those documents to support his submissions and that he should have been allowed to give rebutting evidence.
Patrick Walshe, Newbridge, Co Kildare, said in an affidavit he was interrogated about his meeting in 1969 with Mr de Róiste. Mr Walshe said he was a companion of Mr de Róiste when he was supposedly in the company of alleged subversives at social venues.
Mr Walshe said that in early 1969, Army intelligence questioned him about his relationship with Mr de Róiste. He had wished to be interviewed by the Judge Advocate General in 2002 but she had declined to meet him.
Mr Walshe said it appeared from Ms McCrann's report that she chose to accept as a fact two statements in the files attributed to him when he did not make any such statements. He was shocked and angry that two apparently fabricated statements had been accepted as fact in the absence of any signed statement from him.
He was not aware during his interrogation that Mr de Róiste met Mr X at Clancy barracks and only learned about the incident later from Mr de Róiste. It appeared from the report that he was aware of matters prejudicial to the State and failed to act responsibly, Mr Walshe said. This was absolutely untrue and he had been deeply frustrated in not being able to contribute to the inquiry.
The hearing before Mr Justice John Quirke continues today.