Action on forced retirement fails

A claim by a man that he should not have been compulsorily retired from the Army 30 years ago cannot proceed because of the long…

A claim by a man that he should not have been compulsorily retired from the Army 30 years ago cannot proceed because of the long delay in taking the action, the High Court ruled yesterday.

Mr Justice McCracken said that Mr Donal de Roiste, while undoubtedly having suffered a traumatic experience, had not been so affected that he was unable to issue the proceedings for such a lengthy period.

Mr de Roiste (54), of Cabhsa Inismhor, Ballincollig, Co Cork, a brother of the former presidential candidate, Ms Adi Roche, was told of his compulsory retirement on June 25th, 1969. He brought High Court proceedings against the Minister for Defence and the State last year.

Giving judgment on a preliminary argument that the proceedings should be dismissed because they were not taken in time, Mr Justice McCracken said that in the present application he was not concerned with the merits of the case, except where they might affect the question of delay.

READ MORE

The judge said that Mr de Roiste had made the case that he was interrogated at length over a period and that without any warning he was furnished with a letter stating his retirement and given 12 hours to leave his barracks.

He had been told by his father that he would not be welcome, then or ever, to return home. He had emigrated in 1971 and worked on and off in Britain and in the US.

In the autumn of 1997 Mr de Roiste's sister was a candidate in the presidential election. He submitted that the whole episode of his retirement had been resurrected by the media at the time and he had found this extremely traumatic.

In relation to the period between 1969 and 1997, Mr de Roiste had given virtually no evidence to explain his inaction, the judge said.

Mr de Roiste, married with a family, was not in court yesterday. The judge made no order on costs.