The Supreme Court has dismissed Cheryl Mellett’s appeal against the decision to discharge her from the Defence Forces, rejecting her claims that the process was unfair because she did not receive her extension of service file and because a senior officer’s recommendation for more time was not properly considered.
In a judgment delivered on 9 April 2014, Mr Justice Fennelly upheld the High Court’s rejection of Mellett’s application for judicial review. The appeal concerned the lawfulness of the discharge process, not whether she had met the required fitness standards. The judgment records that she had not passed a fitness test since 2005, and that she could not claim an entitlement to an extension of service.
Mellett joined as a naval recruit in November 2004 for a five-year term. After that term expired in November 2009, she continued serving without engagement. She underwent fitness programmes and told the court she had made progress, but health problems and a road traffic accident affected her efforts. In 2011, her commanding officer did not recommend an extension. A selection board later refused to recommend one and advised that she should be discharged.
The discharge order was made on 22 March 2012 by Major-General Boyle, the officer with statutory authority to order it. The form recording the process incorrectly stated that Brigadier General Aherne had recommended immediate discharge. In fact, Aherne had recommended that Mellett receive a further three months to reach the required fitness level. The High Court found that the recommendation had reached Boyle before he made his decision, despite the error in the form.
The Supreme Court found no general right under natural justice rules to receive the entire decision-maker’s file. It said Mellett knew the essential reason for the proposed discharge: her failure to meet fitness standards. The file contained reports from officers saying she had been given time and relief from some duties to train, claims she disputed. The court treated that dispute as a detail rather than the central reason for discharge.
On the recommendation for more time, the Supreme Court accepted the evidence that it had been conveyed to Boyle. It also held that the recommendation was not binding and that there was no separate duty to explain why Boyle did not follow it. The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the discharge decision in place.