Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FRESHLY REVEALED DOCUMENTS have cast a light on divisions within management of the state’s defence structures as civil servants and military chiefs sought to respond to an increasing amount of military abuse allegations.
A series of documents released to The Journal under Freedom of Information legislation show how the Department of Defence halted the work of the Independent Monitoring Group (IMG) amid repeated pleas from Defence Forces command staff for it to continue.
The briefing documents and correspondence dates from the years between 2018 and 2021 and includes an exchange of emails between then-General Secretary of the Department of Defence (DOD) Jacqui McCrum and then-Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces Vice Admiral Mark Mellett in 2020/2021 as they discussed the best course of action.
This was before a group of serving and former military women, dubbed the Women of Honour, went public with their allegations of abuse in late 2021.
It was, however, almost two decades after the initial disclosure of abuse claims first publicly surfaced in the early 2000s.
While Mellett advocated for the continuing of the IMG, the General Secretary wanted to shift focus to a full review to determine if the monitoring group was doing its job adequately.
Our investigation has uncovered details of discussions that show military chiefs wishing to use the braintrust of the IMG as a way to increase diversity in the Defence Forces – but a reticence by civilian heads of the Department who instead pushed for diversity and female recruitment be dealt with by Human Resources mechanisms.
The IMG had last reported in 2014, its next iteration was due in 2019 – but that never happened. Department of Defence heads recommended a review that did not eventually take place – instead it was overtaken by an independent review group into the allegations made by the Women of Honour. A number of meetings of the IMG’s oversight committee were held up to 2018.
In a recent interview with this website, at the PDFORRA conference, barrister Paulyn Marrinan-Quinn, who was the first Ombudsman of the Defence Forces, criticised the winding up of the IMG.
The IMG monitored and kept watch on the Irish Defence Forces and ensured adherence to best practice in human resources and governance.
It was established in the wake of a number of allegations and reports, including by Dr Tom Clonan, into harassment, sexual harassment and bullying in the Irish Defence Forces.
The first IMG was established in 2002 to oversee the implementation of recommendations arising from findings by Dr Eileen Doyle in a sweeping report in to claims of abuse in the military.
Marrinan-Quinn said she suspected the decision to end it may have been down to a lack of willingness to invest the time and resources in the project.
“How could you move on from something that is going to mind this cherished machine – you can’t move on, to move on could be interpreted as abandoning it.
“So you can’t be abandoning the objectives of the IMG, which was to mind and look after it [Irish Defence Forces] and ensure that it continued. Perhaps it was resourcing? That may well have been the issue – where people said, ‘we just don’t have the time and the resources to invest in this.”
In a separate interview with RTE in April of this year, following the publication of the Independent Review Group report into military abuse allegations, she said the winding up of the Independent Monitoring Group was: “A wanton loss of progress … was the ball dropped, or was it buried?”
In our trawl of documents, there is clear evidence of a divergence between military officers and their civilian masters – but also a desire by all to find a path through the problem between the years 2018 to 2021.
The documents show briefing reports for senior civil servants in which it was suggested that the IMG be put on ice.
Correspondence shows that Department of Defence General Secretary Jacqui McCrum was anxious to “set aside” the IMG in favour of a review of the process up to that point.
The documents then show pleas, in a number of letters, from then-Chief of Staff Mellett to continue with the work.
The the FOI record begins in October 2018, with the first record titled: “Options for IMG IV”.
By then there had been three separate IMG reports which looked at the issues of harassment, bullying, discrimination or sexual harassment and how this issue was being dealt with inside the Irish Defence Forces.
The briefing document notes that “considerable progress” had been made in the three reports – particularly in the area of Human Resource management. The briefer found that the “change in the Defence Forces since 2008 had been impressive”.
But the author of the document, a senior civil servant, said that “despite the level of improvements and the number of actions completed in the IMG implementation Action Plan, it is clear that problems still persist”.
The author found that there was evidence of this in the amount of litigation being made by alleged victims.
It said that “despite the robust nature of military life”, workplace standards common outside of that environment must also be adhered to in the Defence Forces. To deal with this the author suggested a “back to basics” approach for the IMG.
As found in other investigations by this website, civil servants tend to present to their department head or minister a series of recommendations – this report was no different.
The author made six suggestions – it included a plan to keep the IMG functioning or come up with a series of measures, including appointing academics, to carry out the work.
The author suggested that the problems of bullying and harassment had not been “sufficiently eradicated”. It is suggested that a consistent approach should be adopted and that the third IMG should be extended.
The civil servant suggested that after a period of one year that it could then be determined if a new approach was required.
In January and February there were exchanges of letters between Mellett and then-minister with responsibility for Defence Paul Kehoe. Kehoe was essentially a Minister for State while the actual Minister for Defence was then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.
Mellett stressed that he believe the IMG was an effective way to deal with Defence issues and appealed to the Minister to establish a new iteration. Kehoe in response said that he would liaise with senior Defence civil servant Robert Mooney to decide on the next step forward.
The next document in the FOI trawl is from April 2019 titled “Re: Future of IMG – Draft Terms of Reference”. This mooted the possibility of a review of the progress of the IMG and how the Defence Forces were dealing with abuse and harassment allegations.
The author of the report, said that the issue of “unacceptable behaviour” had received attention for “nigh on” 25 years by 2019. The civil servant again mentioned a “back to basics” approach and that there was a need to find out why “certain problems have not been eradicated”.
The report states: “the approach needs to: focus on the original problem and the extent to which it has been resolved. Consider why certain problems have not been eradicated – it is related to the command/control culture, geographic spread of the force or inconsistency in training.”
The terms of reference for IMG IV were then set out – these included that the committee would look at how this renewed focus would be achieved and if the work of the IMG was bearing fruit.
It also, following a suggestion from Mellett, would look at ways to attract more females into the military and look at diversity across the ranks. This was to be achieved with surveys and working groups.
There was a built in review of the IMG and whether it was needed to continue and if it had made sufficient progress.
In June of 2020, the documents show, a Defence Forces Working Group was established and this reported the urgent need for the IMG to be re-established “without delay”.
In July of 2020 Mellett again wrote, this time to then-Minister for Defence, Simon Coveney, seeking the appointment of an independent chair to begin the work of the fourth IMG.
The review and plans for the future are then made clear in a lengthy and detailed briefing note dated October 2020 sent to Assistant Secretary General Robert Mooney and Secretary General Jacqui McCrum.
This document states that the IMG should be focused on its terms of reference and not drift into Industrial Relations problems.
The “back to basics” approach was heavily referenced – the report advises that there needs to be: “a focus on the original problem and the extent to which it has been resolved or still exists”.
By February 2021 a new set of terms of reference were established with the composition and scope of a “back to basics” review included.
This would be entitled ‘Defence Forces: Dignity and Equality in the DF Workplace – a Review’.
In March 2021 Jacqui McCrum wrote to Defence Forces Chief of Staff Mark Mellett to break the news that the DOD were changing tack and would not be going ahead with a fourth IMG. She said that the review she was considering had been recommended by the IMG itself.
In a lengthy and detailed letter in early March 2021 McCrum outlined her considerations and views that a “back to basics” approach was needed.
“I would favour an independent root and branch review of the policies, systems and procedures currently in place for dealing with workplace dignity, bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination, to determine that those polices, systems and procedures remain fit for purpose and in line with best practice,” she wrote.
McCrum explained that she believed that it would be “critical” to assess that these practices and procedures were in line with “similar sectors” both nationally and internationally.
“To this end, I propose that ‘a follow-on IMG IV’ be set aside in favour of a separate and standalone independent review,” she explained.
Essentially McCrum’s letter was looking at finding a way to establish if the IMG was an appropriate way to examine the alleged abuse – it was an examination of the efficiency of the process.
She suggested that she would consider an oversight group comprising senior military and civil service officials along with PDFORRA and RACO but only after the recommendations of the review.
Earlier in correspondence it was said that Irish Congress of Trade Union membership by the representative bodies was a complicating factor in maintaining their presence in oversight committees.
McCrum also told the Chief of Staff that his requests for IMG support to increase the female membership of the Defence Forces be addressed by a separate HR grouping.
Mellett responded in April 2021 in a hugely detailed letter and an accompanying email.
In the email he told McCrum that he agreed that there was an “opportunity to carry out an historical audit” which would address lingering criticism.
“While I don’t expect it will uncover any issues for us to action, it will provide an antidote to deal with naysayers or populist demands.
“The real opportunity is to look to the future and build on what I genuinely believe is good work, determination and strong intent to continue a culture shift,” he wrote.
Mellett stressed that he still believed there was a need for the IMG to continue its work and labours the point that there must be a female independent chairperson.
“There is some distance to go and the right independent chair could be tasked with the initial look back before taking the reigns of IMG 4. She, and while I would normally say he/she, in this case it has to be she would be a resource to you and I and the DF leadership in helping the DF be an exemplar in the Irish public service and militaries internationally,” he added.
This is accompanied with a more formal document in which he again stresses the work of the IMG and that he believed it was the only way to solve the problem. He also calls for help recruiting and retaining more women.
A further exchange took place in May 2021. In this letter McCrum again stressed her belief that a review was the way forward and that inclusion and recruitment of female personnel be handled as a “key part of normal (HR) business”.
Mellett and McCrum again traded responses in August 2021 and each continue to stress their positions with Mellett stating that the IMG is the way forward and stressing that a delay in moving forward with it was having a detrimental impact.
McCrum stressed that the Department believed there was a need for “external validation” of the IMG and that they were pushing ahead with their plan for a review.
In September 2021 Mark Mellett retired from the Defence Forces and Lt General Seán Clancy took over the Chief of Staff role.
There are a number of letters between Ministers and Chief of Staff Mellett in 2020 and 2021 before his retirement excluded from the disclosed documents due to, what the DOD information officer determined, was the presence of confidential and personal data.
The correspondence at all times is polite and considered but there is a clear stressing of positions.
The letters, emails and reports consistently, throughout, show civilians and military officers attempting to wrestle with how best to address the issues but there is a strong divergence between military and civilians.
While military officers wished to expand the IMG to deal with issues beyond abuse the civilians at the DOD wished to tighten it or look at the effectiveness of its work.
Regardless of those machinations there was a gathering storm of allegations and scandal building.
The Women of Honour emerged as strong advocates for alleged abuse victims in late 2021 following an RTE documentary.
That initiated the Independent Review Group which was published earlier this year detailing a catalogue of abuse allegations.
The Government has announced an inquiry into those allegations.
Whether the IMG was the correct platform to prevent those victims from suffering abuse will likely be determined in that inquiry.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say