The Courts-Martial Appeal Court refused leave to appeal a sentence reducing a corporal to the rank of private, finding no error of principle in the military judge’s decision. The appeal concerned the demotion; a €500 fine was not challenged.
The serviceman had pleaded guilty at a summary court-martial to five charges arising from conduct at a function at the Best Western Boyne Valley Hotel in Drogheda on 17 March 2007. The charges included assaulting a civilian guest, grabbing a private by the head, exposing himself, using inappropriate language towards the guest and becoming involved in an affray with another private. The court judgment does not name the civilian guest.
The military judge imposed the demotion and fine on 9 June 2009. He had considered the serviceman’s guilty plea, apology, alcohol consumption, good service record, character references, family circumstances and mortgage. He declined to impose a custodial sentence or discharge him from the Defence Forces, but concluded that his conduct meant he was not fit at that time to hold the rank of corporal.
The appeal argued that demotion was disproportionate because it would reduce the serviceman’s net income by about €130 a week, or more than €6,500 a year, and that restrictions on recruitment and promotion could make it difficult to regain his former rank. The prosecution submitted that the sentence was within the military judge’s authority and reflected the need to maintain discipline.
The appeal court said it must consider ordinary sentencing principles in the context of military discipline, while respecting the constitutional rights of service members. It found the military judge had considered the relevant circumstances and had addressed proportionality. The appeal court said it could identify no lesser sentence that would achieve the disciplinary objective and no error of principle warranting leave.
The court also noted that the military judge had encouraged the serviceman to regain the trust of his superiors before his contract expired, while acknowledging that decisions about retention or promotion were not for the appeal court. Leave to appeal was refused.