Defence Forces Tribunal – Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is a Tribunal of Inquiry?

A Tribunal of Inquiry is a body set up to inquire into matters that are of urgent public importance. It is purely a fact-finding and investigative body. At the end of its inquiry, a Tribunal sends a Report to the Oireachtas. The Report sets out the Tribunal’s findings and makes recommendations for the future.

2. When was the Defence Forces Tribunal established?

The Tribunal of Inquiry into Issues Relating to the Complaints Processes in the Defence Forces and the Culture Surrounding the Making of Complaints was established, by statutory instrument dated 20 June 2024, by the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence. Its short title is the ‘Defence Forces Tribunal’.

3. Why was the Tribunal established?

An Independent Review Group (the ‘IRG’) recommended that a statutory fact-finding process be established in order to identify systemic failures, if any, in the Defence Forces’ complaints processes for dealing with complaints of abuse. The Government acted on that recommendation and established this Tribunal of Inquiry. The Tribunal is tasked with inquiring, urgently, into several matters relating to the effectiveness of the complaints processes and the culture within the Defences Forces when dealing with complaints of abuse. The Tribunal is also investigating the response to complaints about the use of hazardous chemicals in Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel.

4. Is the Tribunal the same as the IRG?

No. The Tribunal is an entirely separate and distinct body and its work is not connected in any way with the IRG.

5. What period of time is covered by the Tribunal’s inquiry?

The Tribunal is tasked with investigating matters from the 1st of January 1983 until the 20th of June 2024.

6. What is the Tribunal’s status?

The Tribunal is an independent body established pursuant to the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921 – 2011.

7. What are the Tribunal’s Terms of Reference?

      • The Tribunal’s Terms of Reference set out the scope of the Tribunal’s work and list the various matters into which it must inquire and on which it must report. The Tribunal cannot investigate matters that fall outside the scope of its Terms of Reference.
      • The Tribunal’s principal task is to examine how complaints of abuse were handled in the Defence Forces for the period mentioned above (that is, from 1 January 1983 until 20 June 2024). It also has other matters to investigate and these are set out below.
      • ‘Abuse’, in this context, means discrimination, bullying, harassment, physical torture or assault, psychological harm, sexual harassment and any form of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and rape).
      • The full Terms of Reference are available at www.toidf.ie and a summary of the matters into which the Tribunal must inquire is set out below.
The Tribunal will examine and report on:
      1. whether the processes for dealing with complaints of abuse that were available to members of the Defence Forces and civilian employees and civil servants working within the Defence Forces and civil servants working in the Department of Defence, were appropriate and fit for purpose;
      2. whether these processes were followed; and
      3. what was the response to and outcome of complaints of abuse that were made and whether there were ‘systemic failures’ in the processes for dealing with those complaints.
The Tribunal will also consider and report on:
      1. whether making complaints of abuse was something that was actively deterred in the Defence Forces or whether there was a culture that discouraged people from making complaints of abuse; and
      2. whether those who made complaints of abuse were subjected to any kind of retaliation or reprisal or intimidation or penalty.
In addition, the Tribunal will investigate and report on:
      1. the nature and performance of the statutory role of the Minister for Defence and the Department of Defence (going back to 1 January 1983) in the systems and procedures for dealing with complaints of abuse; and
      2. the responses to complaints about the use of hazardous chemicals within Air Corps’ Headquarters at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, and the adequacy of the complaints processes in the light of those responses.

8. Will the Tribunal investigate actual complaints that were made and will it make findings in relation to those complaints?

No. The Tribunal is concerned only with inquiring into the processes for dealing with complaints of abuse in the Defence Forces. It does not and cannot investigate whether the actual complaints were well founded. In other words, the Tribunal will not be investigating whether the matters that gave rise to a complaint of abuse occurred. Rather, it is concerned with how the Defence Forces responded to complaints of abuse after they had been made. For example, if a member complained about being assaulted, the Tribunal cannot investigate whether that alleged assault actually occurred. Its task is to examine what happened after the complaint about assault was made, what processes were involved and whether those processes were adequate. While it is not necessary for the Tribunal to know the name of a person against whom a complaint was made, it would be helpful for the Tribunal to know that person’s rank and station and to receive information about how and to whom a complaint was made.

9. If a person had reason to make a complaint to the Defence Forces during the period from 1 January 1983 to 20 June 2024 (the relevant period) but did not do so, can that person still provide a statement and/or information to the Tribunal?

Yes. In addition to investigating the complaints processes, the Tribunal is inquiring into the culture surrounding the making of complaints of abuse in the Defence Forces during the relevant period. If a person did not make a formal complaint of abuse because of a fear of reprisal or a belief that it would serve no purpose, that information would be relevant to the Tribunal’s inquiry and any such person is invited to submit a statement to the Tribunal.

10. Who is leading the Inquiry?

The Tribunal’s inquiry is led by a Judge who is described as the ‘Sole Member’ of the Tribunal. She is Ms. Justice Ann Power, a Judge of the Court of Appeal and a former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights.

11. Is the Tribunal process like a trial?

No, the Tribunal is not a trial. It is an inquisitorial process, not an adversarial one. The Tribunal is tasked with establishing or finding out the truth about the complaints processes within the Defence Forces in relation to complaints of abuse.

Some people will have relevant evidence about the complaints processes and will want to give that evidence to the Tribunal. Others may disagree with that evidence and may want to challenge it. The Tribunal must be fair to everyone who appears before it. It will consider all the evidence that it receives in order to find out or establish where the truth lies. Its objective is to make findings about the complaints processes, report on those findings and offer recommendations for the future.

12. What is the role of Counsel to the Tribunal?

Counsel to the Tribunal’s primary role is to collect the relevant evidence and to assist the Judge or ‘Sole Member’ by presenting that evidence at hearings and questioning the witnesses who come before the Tribunal.

13. Where will the Tribunal hold its public hearings?

Public hearings will be held at the Tribunal’s premises which are in Smithfield, Dublin. The address is The Infinity Building, Third Floor, George’s Court, George’s Lane, Smithfield, Dublin 7, D07 E98Y.

14. When will public hearings commence?

The public hearings stage of the Tribunal’s work will begin when the private investigative stage of its work has been completed. The investigative stage is expected to take several months.

15. Can a person make a statement or a submission, anonymously, to the Tribunal?

No. The Tribunal must act with fairness at all times and could not make findings on the basis of anonymous statements.

16. How can a person make a statement or provide information to the Tribunal?

This may be done by either sending in the written statement to the Tribunal or by filling out a form that is available on the Tribunal’s website (www.toidf.ie) and sending that form to the Tribunal. Statements or completed forms should be sent to the Tribunal’s Solicitor at Defence Forces Tribunal, Infinity Building, Third Floor, George’s Court, George’s Lane, Smithfield, Dublin 7, D07 E98Y.

Statements or forms may also be sent by email to info@toidf.ie

The Tribunal is asking any person who has information that is relevant to its Terms of Reference to contact the Tribunal’s Solicitor and to give that information by close of business on 30 September 2024.

17. Does the Tribunal provide assistance to a person making a statement?

If someone has a difficulty or a problem with writing a statement, there is a person available to the Tribunal who can help by taking down or transcribing what she is told. Anyone who has difficulty submitting a written statement may make an appointment with this person by calling the Tribunal office on (01) 539 1550.

18. If a person submits a statement to the Tribunal, will that person be called for interview, and if so, when?

A person who has submitted a statement that is relevant to the Tribunal’s Terms of Reference, is likely to be called for interview by the Tribunal’s legal team during the Autumn of 2024. If a person has a difficulty attending for interview at the Tribunal’s premises in Dublin, then arrangements may be made to hold interviews in other locations.

19. If a statement is submitted to the Tribunal will the person who made it be required to give evidence at the public hearings stage?

If a person submits a statement to the Tribunal that is relevant to its Terms of Reference, such a person may be called to give evidence.

20. If a person is called to give evidence at the public hearing phase, will that person be subjected to cross-examination?

Any witnesses who give evidence to the Tribunal may be cross-examined on their testimony if what they say is being challenged.

21. If a person is called to give evidence to the Tribunal, will this be in public?

The Tribunal is a public inquiry so, generally, oral hearings will be held in public. However, the law permits a Tribunal to hold a hearing otherwise than in public if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, it is in the public interest expedient to do so for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given.

Some of the evidence that the Tribunal will receive may be particularly sensitive in nature and where an application is made for a hearing to be held otherwise than in public, the Tribunal will hear submissions from the relevant parties and will consider and decide on each application as it arises.

22. Can a person submit a statement to the Tribunal without a solicitor?

Yes. It is not necessary for a person to seek legal advice or have legal representation before submitting a statement or providing information to the Tribunal. Information about how to submit a statement to the Tribunal is available on the Tribunal’s website: www.toidf.ie

23. Who will have legal representation before the Tribunal?

Although the Tribunal’s inquiry is inquisitorial and not adversarial, those who have a sufficiently direct interest in the matters being inquired into may be granted representation by the Tribunal.

To date, full representation has been granted to the Defence Forces and to the Department of Defence which means that they will have legal representation at the investigative stage and the public hearings stage of the Tribunal’s work.

The representative bodies listed below have been granted limited legal representation during the investigative stage of the Tribunal’s work. A decision on their applications for representation during the public hearings stage has been deferred.

        1. Permanent Defence Forces Other Ranks Representative Association (PDFORRA);
        2. Women of Honour;
        3. Defence Forces Justice Alliance;
        4. 34th Platoon Army Apprentice School Justice Group;
        5. Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors;
        6. DF Whistleblowers Protected Disclosure Justice Group; and
        7. Defence Forces Lariam Justice Group.

Any additional applications, in writing, for representation during the Tribunal’s investigative phase will be considered at the appropriate time.

Before the Tribunal may consider an individual person’s application for legal representation, the Tribunal would need to see that individual’s statement.

24. What is the timeline for completion of the Tribunal’s work?

The Tribunal must endeavour to complete its work within three (3) years from the date of its establishment which was 20 June 2024.

25. How can I keep up to date on Tribunal matters?

The ‘Notices’ section on the Tribunal’s website (www.toidf.ie) has up to date information regarding the Tribunal and it is advisable to check the website, regularly, for updates.

Defence Forces Tribunal – Legal representations & invitation for submissions

Upon the establishment of the Defence Forces Tribunal the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors representative group where concerned about an imbalance in legal resources between the Defence Forces & Department of Defence on the one hand and victims groups on the other.

We agreed with the Defence Forces Justice Alliance, the Women of Honour & other victims groups that legal representation was a must from the very start of the tribunal so that all our members can make comprehensive initial submissions with the benefit of legal oversight.

On the 25th of June 2024 Ms Justice Ann Power handed down a Ruling of the Tribunal on Applications for Representation Made on Behalf of Representative Bodies (please see extract and link to full ruling below).

We are delighted to announce the appointment of solicitor, Mr Norman Spicer, of Coleman Legal LLP as our legal representative for the tribunal.

Norman is a former member of the Defence Forces having served as a Gunner in Mc Kee barracks and can be contacted via the email address below.

norman@colemanlegal.ie

We would encourage all colleagues with complaints of hazardous chemicals or abuse linked to same to make contact immediately so that submissions can be made within the recently extended deadline of the 30th September 2024.

*****

Extract From Ruling

Application was made by Mr Gavin Tobin, on behalf of the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors, for partial representation.

In addition to complaints concerning ‘toxic chemicals’, this representative body, in its written application, also referred to matters that may fall within the definition of abuse as set out in the Terms of Reference.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors group as a sufficiently direct interest in the Terms of Reference to be granted limited representation during the investigative stage of the Tribunal’s work and it is so ordered.

Limited representation is granted to the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors for the following purposes:

(a) assisting individual members who have information relevant to Terms of Reference (vii) and assisting such individual members to the extent that they have information concerning complaints of abuse as defined in the Terms of Reference and which is relevant to paragraphs (i) to (v) thereof and who wish to submit statements to the Tribunal in relation thereto;

(b) attending upon any such members if they are called for interview during the investigative stage of the Tribunal; and

(c) making submissions as an organisation and on behalf of its membership in respect of the Terms of Reference.

Having considered the written and oral application made herein, the Tribunal is satisfied that a grant of representation to the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors in these terms is sufficient to cover that representative body’s interests during the investigative stage of the Tribunal’s work.

The Tribunal defers its decision in respect of the extent of legal representation, if any, during the public hearings stage of its work.

Download the full ruling of Ms Justice Ann Power from 25th July 2024 below. 

https://www.toidf.ie/app/uploads/2024/07/Ruling-of-the-Tribunal-on-Applications-for-Representation-25-July-2024.pdf

Haulbowline cadet canteen shut down after inspectors find exits locked and mould

There were also hazardous chemicals stored in open containers at the Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork late last year

Haulbowline  Larry Cummins

A health and safety inspection at Naval Service headquarters resulted in the shutting down of a cadet canteen area after emergency exits were found blocked as well as damp and mould.

An inspector from the Health and Safety Authority visited the Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork late last year discovering fire doors that weren’t being properly maintained, open attic space between buildings, and storage of hazardous chemicals in open containers.

There were serious issues with a cadet mess building on the base with lower emergency exits “blocked by stairs” along with evidence of damp and mould on walls and floors.

The health and safety inspector asked the Naval Service to conduct an immediate review of the building in terms of its “fitness for use or occupation”. In early January, the Defence Forces wrote to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) to say it was no longer in active use.

A letter from Defence Forces Headquarters said:

“I can confirm and as per [our] action plan the Naval Service Cadets Mess is not used to accommodate any personnel following HSA inspection. Cadets [and] personnel were moved to alternative accommodation within the base.”

Read full article by Ken Foxe at the Irish Examiner 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-41414152.html

*****

Despite repeated interventions by the Health & Safety Authority the Defence Forces cannot seem to get their houses in order.

The previous Chief of Staff, Vice Admiral Mark Mellett was at the helm of the Defence Forces when the HSA threatened legal action against the Irish Air Corps. 

Subsequently,  Vice Admiral Mellett heaped praise upon then Brigadier General Seán Clancy as GOC Air Corps claiming that “Sean Clancy did a great job cleaning up the Air Corps” albeit after serving 30+ years in the same Air Corps he supposedly cleaned up.

Two service branches now under the command of Chief of Staff,  Lieutenant General Sean Clancy, namely the Air Corps and the Naval Service, have yet again come under the spotlight for poor Health & Safety including hazardous chemical breaches. 

The Defence Forces have so far been as high as the Supreme Court in attempts to defend against legal cases relating to poor health & safety and unprotected hazardous chemical exposure yet the HSA continue to find them in contravention of legislation designed to protected their personnel. 

There is no accountability in this organisation when it comes to incompetence & negligence on Health & Safety issues because it simply does not have a culture of Health & Safety, a fact which successive Defence Ministers have been more than happy to ignore. 

Delay – Deny – Die

Helicopter crews suing MOD, claiming exhaust fumes caused their cancer

The personnel claim toxic fumes emitted from the aircraft caused their illness, and they are accusing the MOD of being negligent about the risk to their health.

The Sea King is one of the helicopter types whose exhaust fumes allegedly caused cancer among a number of former aircrew

The Ministry of Defence is being sued by crew members who have been diagnosed with cancer after serving on military helicopters.

The personnel claim toxic fumes emitted from the aircraft caused their illness, and they are accusing the MOD of being negligent about the risk to their health.

According to a report by The Times, crew members who served on board helicopters such as the Sea King, Wessex, Puma and Chinook are among those who are taking legal action.

It includes those who’ve served in the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force from a variety of ranks.

They are saying they were exposed to concentrated levels of toxic exhaust fumes during their flights.

The say they have subsequently been diagnosed with illnesses such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, lung cancer, throat cancer and testicular cancer.

At least three of the former personnel affected have already passed away, while others have been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Five former service personnel have received out-of-court settlements, including a former flight sergeant who trained Prince William in the RAF.

It is being claimed the Government knew about the risk posed by the Sea King’s exhaust as far back as 1999, but aircrew continued to fly on board without safety precautions.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We hugely value our service personnel and veterans and owe a debt of gratitude to all those who serve, often with great personal sacrifice.

“We continually review our policies to ensure they are aligned with good practice and protect our people from harm.

Service personnel and veterans who believe they have suffered ill health due to service from 6 April 2005 have the existing and long-standing right to apply for no-fault compensation under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.”

Read full article on Forces.net…

https://www.forces.net/technology/aircraft/helicopter-crews-suing-mod-claiming-exhaust-fumes-caused-their-cancer

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Is anything safe at Air Corps base?

Damaged drains, cables across hangar floors, a leaking oven, oil spills and a risk of Legionnaires’ disease… these are just a few of the workplace hazards inspectors found at Casement Aerodrome

Health and safety inspections on the Irish Air Corps discovered spills of hazardous brake fluid, a water supply that carried the risk of Legionnaires disease, fall risks, damaged drains and trailing cables across hangar floors.

The Defence Forces were also issued with a contravention notice by the Health & Safety Authority (HSA) over the use of some chemicals without proper training of personnel.

A separate report from December said that several safety data sheets were outdated and recommended additional training on the handling of specific restricted chemicals. 

Read full article by Ken Foxe at the Irish Mail on Sunday via Pressreader…

https://www.pressreader.com/article/281728389626905

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Air Corps member ‘penalised’ for protected disclosure

The Dáil has heard that several long-serving members of the Air Corps have been penalised for having made protective disclosures which flagged concerns over health and safety.

An Irish Air Corps workshop in Engineering Wing in 2007

Richard Boyd Barrett, People Before Profit – Solidarity TD, said that the disclosures related to using “dangerous chemicals”, the inability of all members of a team to have children and the lack of oversight of officers who were never held to account.

As a result of “the failure of the top brass”, the Mr Boyd Barrett said, one of the whistle-blower’s “felt that he had to retire”.

The man was unable to bring a case before the Workplace Relations Commission as he was advised, “you’re not an employee, you’re a worker”.

He has now agreed to have his story recounted to the Dáil, Mr Boyd Barrett told the deputies present.

“Sergeant Patrick Gorman served for 35 years in the Air Corps” with “an exemplary conduct rating”, having served in Lebanon, Somalia, Liberia and Chad, sometimes on multiple tours of duty, said Mr Boyd Barrett.

“He blew the whistle about his treatment and the treatment of other members of the Defence Forces… who made protected disclosures and who were penalised as a result.”

Children exposed to ‘contaminated clothing’

“They were wearing gloves, for example, that disintegrated on contact with chemicals that they were been asked to use” on aircraft repairs, he said of Sgt Gorman’s experiences.

“He was working with them for 18 years without a respirator, and it was only in the last two years that they got the respirator.

“In a group of seven people working in the sheet metal structural repair shop, seven of the people couldn’t have children, which seems quite incredible.”

Mr Boyd Barrett revealed that some of the carcinogenic chemicals involved were referenced in the eponymous film about the famous US whistleblower, Erin Brockovich, who successfully sued a utility firm for hundreds of millions of dollars for contaminating drinking water.

“Paint strippers that were banned elsewhere, still being used in the Irish Defence Forces,” he said.

Soldiers were not warned about contaminated clothing which they wore “home to their kids”, and which led to “it being mixed in with the washing of children and the rest of the family, potentially contaminating them with dangerous chemicals”.

Read the full article on the RTE website…

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2024/0502/1447056-dail-protected-discolsure/

*****

Sgt Gorman did the right thing in 2015/2016 by making Protected Disclosures to the Minister for Defence and the Health & Safety Authority which resulted in the HSA threatening legal action against Air Corps if they failed to implement urgent chemical health & safety reforms.

The Department’s own “O’Toole Report” and the almost three year HSA interventions fully vindicated Sgt Gorman. However, the response of the Irish Air Corps, the Department of Defence & successive Ministers (Coveney, Kehoe & Varadkar) was to ensure that Sgt Gorman was constructively dismissed.

The Air Corps Toxic Chemical Exposure Scandal broke in the Irish Examiner thanks to Joe Leogue in January 2017. Despite being raised in excess of twenty times in the Dáil, Seanad, Public Accounts Committee and even Varadkar’s confidence motion, this is the first time that RTE have reported on the scandal #106 dead.

Better late then never eh ?

Delay – Deny – Die

British troops ‘knowingly exposed’ to toxic chemical during Iraq war tell of cancer battles and daily nosebleeds

Nearly 100 RAF soldiers were ordered to guard the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in 2003. They didn’t know it was covered in sodium dichromate, a deadly chemical that causes cancer.

Iraq war veteran Andy Tosh points to his nose where he was treated for skin cancer and shows the red marks on his hand.

His health has been permanently damaged – not by the baking heat of the Iraqi desert, he says, but by a toxic chemical at the industrial site he was ordered to guard.

“It’s clear British troops were knowingly exposed,” the 58-year-old former RAF sergeant says.

Sky News can reveal that nearly 100 British troops may have been exposed to sodium dichromate while guarding the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in 2003.

Ten British veterans who guarded the plant have now spoken publicly about their ordeal – and say they feel “betrayed” by the UK government after struggling with a range of health problems, including daily nosebleeds, a brain tumour and three who have been diagnosed with cancer.

Described as a “deadly poison”, sodium dichromate is a known carcinogen. The ground at Qarmat Ali was covered in it, according to the former servicemen.

The Ministry of Defence says it is willing to meet the veterans to work with them going forward – but the former troops say they want answers and accountability.

Before the US took over the site, the water was filtered and treated with sodium dichromate to increase the life of pipelines, pumps, and other equipment.

It’s a type of hexavalent chromium, a group of compounds made famous by the 2000 film Erin Brockovich, which dramatised the contamination of water around a California town.

“I noticed a rash on my forearms,” Mr Tosh said. “I’d operated in other hot tropical countries, I’ve never had a rash like I had on my forearms.

“Other members of our teams had different symptoms but at the time we had no idea why.”

It was a mystery.

That is, until two workers in hazmat suits and respirator masks turned up in August 2003 and put up a sign with a skull and crossbones on it.

“Warning. Chemical hazard. Full protective equipment and chemical respirator required. Sodium dichromate exposure” the sign read.

“We were shocked,” Mr Tosh added. “We’d already been on that site for months, being exposed.

“It was a different type of threat that none of us could really understand.”

US commander’s death linked to sodium dichromate

The plight of US troops who were exposed to sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali is far better documented than their UK counterparts. National guardsmen who visited the site have become ill, leading to a formal inquiry and government support for veterans across the pond.

“While I was at Qarmat Ali, I began suffering from severe nosebleeds,” Russell Powell, an American former medic, told a Senate inquiry.

Within three days of arriving at the plant in April 2003 he developed rashes on his knuckles, hands and forearms, he said. Others in his platoon suffered similar ailments, he added.

Mr Powell said he had questioned a KBR worker about the powder, who said his supervisors had told him not to worry about it.

Speaking at a hearing in 2009 held as part of the inquiry, Mr Powell added: “My symptoms have not changed since my service in Iraq… I cannot take a full breath.” Lieutenant-Colonel James Gentry, of the Indiana National Guard, was stationed at Qarmat Ali in 2003.

“They had this information and didn’t share it,” he said in a deposition video, his face pale as he struggled to breathe. He was referring to contractors KBR.

“I’m dying now because of it.”

Lt Col Gentry died from cancer in 2009. The US Army deemed that his death was “in line of duty for exposure to sodium dichromate”, according to court documents.

Read full article by Michael Drummond on the Sky News website…

https://news.sky.com/story/british-troops-knowingly-exposed-to-toxic-chemical-during-iraq-war-tell-of-cancer-battles-and-daily-nosebleeds-13093915

*****

Ardrox 666, which contains hexavalent sodium chromate, running down the walls of the Irish Air Corps NDT Shop from an extractor fan in 2007

Hexavalent Chromium is & was widely used on a regular basis in the Irish Air Corps. It must be noted the Irish Air Corps ignored the chemical provisions of the Safety, Health & Welfare At Work Acts, 1989 & 2005 until the Health & Safety Authority threatened legal action in 2016 to force them to comply. This was after whistleblowing by a serving Air Corps member who was subsequently constructively dismissed.

Hexavalent Chromium and other very hazardous chemicals were used in the past by teenage apprentice technicians who had no chemical handling training, no education on the short or long term chemical exposure risks as well as no PPE.

Furthermore, when the Irish Air Corps discovered contaminated workshops in 1995 they hid this from personnel. When told by state body Forbairt in 1997 to to give all personnel chemical handling training, issue PPE and train personnel in how to use it they ignored this instruction too.

Some examples of chemical products used in Baldonnel that contain hexavalent chromium (chromates or dichromates) are listed below.

Alocrom 1200

  • Potassium Dichromate
  • Sodium Dichromate

Alodine 600

  • Potassium Dichromate
  • Sodium Dichromate

Ardrox 666

  • Sodium Chromate

Ardrox 670

  • Sodium Chromate
  • LR4871
  • Zinc Chromate

Mastinox 6856H

  • Zinc Chromate

Mastinox 6856K

  • Barium Chromate
  • Strontium Chromate

Mastinox C627B

  • Barium Chromate

Mastinox D40 

  • Barium Chromate

Mastinox JC5A 

  • Barium Chromate

Metaflex 1001 Wash Primer

  • Zinc Potassium Chromate

Metaflex FCR Primer Yellow

  • Zinc Chromate

PR-1422A

  • Calcium Dichromate
  • Magnesium Dichromate

PR-1422B

  • Calcium Dichromate

PR-1436GA

  • Strontium Chromate

PR-1436GB 

  • Calcium Dichromate
  • Magnesium Dichromate

PR-1436G E2

  • Calcium Dichromate
  • Sodium Dichromate

PR-1440B

  • Calcium Dichromate
  • Magnesium Dichromate

PR-1750B

  • Calcium Dichromate
  • Magnesium Dichromat

PS-870B

  • Magnesium Dichromate

Delay – Deny – Die

State paid out more than €10m to settle claims against Defence Forces

The State has paid out more than €10m in legal settlements of claims against the Defence Forces in the last four years but faces paying many times that amount in the coming years.

The Department of Defence has admitted that there are a total of 482 current and “open” cases against the Defence Forces. These include personal injury claims and judicial reviews.

It paid out some €10,698,855 in respect of cases taken by current or former members of the Defence Forces from 2020 to 2023.

A spokesperson said this figure represents “the total value of settlements recorded arising from litigation”.

“Any case taken against the Defence Forces, for whatever reason, must be taken against the Minister for Defence because the Defence Forces cannot act as defendants or respondents in cases of litigation.

“The Department of Defence is therefore responsible for the management of all such litigation cases, including those taken by current or former members of the Defence Forces. This litigation includes personal injuries claims.”

Defence Forces Justice Alliance spokesperson Alan Nolan said that in many cases, personnel are forced down the route of litigation.

“This is because the internal reporting and complaints channels are so unfit for purpose, personnel often use litigation as a last resort to seek justice.

The saddest thing is that even when a case might be won or lost, nothing really changes because the State might have to pay, but they don’t have to be held accountable by anybody.”

The Department has also confirmed that anybody suing the Defence Forces will still be able to give evidence in the forthcoming tribunal.

The tribunal is being established to see if the army’s complaints system is fit for purpose. The decision to hold the inquiry followed the publication of a review into allegations of brutal and “sadistic” abuse — including the rape of both male and female soldiers.

A Women of Honour spokesperson said:

“The level of payouts is a small indicator of the wrongs being perpetrated in the Defence Forces. This is a further reason why a full statutory tribunal of inquiry is required to examine what really is going on inside the Defence Forces. Sadly the Forces have become a centre of abuse of all forms and before it can be fully reformed.”

There had been concern among organisations like the Defence Forces Justice Alliance and the Women of Honour that anybody involved in proceedings would be barred from giving evidence.

The Department spokesperson said:

“Such personnel are not precluded from giving testimony/evidence to the tribunal.”

Ultimately, it will be a matter for the chair of the tribunal to determine the extent of the evidence to be heard, the spokesperson added.

Read full article by Neil Michael on the Irish Examiner website…

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41350498.html

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Irish Air Corps members allege they were penalised for whistleblowing by loss of retirement ceremony

Failure to invite soldier back for unit presentation is ‘biggest slap in the face’, says airman

Unfortunate “Daft Dave” runs scared after tripping up multiple times…

It has been alleged to the Workplace Relations Commission that around half a dozen Air Corps service members were not afforded a retirement ceremony when they left the service as an act of penalisation for turning whistleblower. The claim was aired after the State failed in a bid to have the press excluded from a whistleblower protection claim against the Department of Defence earlier on Wednesday.

An Air Corps commandant gave evidence that the sort of “unit presentation” complained about would be organised primarily by colleagues and peers, and that there was “no responsibility on anyone” to arrange a retirement party.

Former airman Patrick Gorman claims he was penalised in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 on the grounds that he was not invited back to his former unit to receive a presentation marking his retirement because he made protected disclosures a number of years earlier. His representative, Niall Donohue, told the Workplace Relations Commission on Wednesday that up to six former members of the No 4 Support Wing of the Air Corps, based at Baldonnel Aerodrome, “all got the same treatment” after making protected disclosures, and were prepared to come and testify in support of his claim.

Mr Guidera, appearing instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, had sought a hearing “in camera” in a motion resisted by the complainant’s representative Mr Donohue.

“This is strictly in the public interest. The facts, if heard, will be greatly appreciated by the public,” Mr Gorman said.

“The biggest slap in the face you could give a soldier who’d served 35 years in the Defence Forces would be to not invite him back for a unit presentation,” Mr Gorman told the tribunal.

Mr Donohue said the alleged denial of a retirement ceremony to the veteran “undermined his reputation in the community of the Defence Forces. Why was this done to him? The answer is it was done to him because he put in his protected disclosure.”

There was legal argument over the interpretation of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 as it applied to a member of the Defence Forces.

Mr Guidera contended Defence Forces personnel only have the status of a “worker” as defined in the legislation – leaving them without the protections afforded to an “employee” in the Act.

Mr Donohue argued that the words “worker” and “employee” in the whistleblower protection law were “interchangeable”.

The adjudicator said he would adjourn the hearing to consider preliminary arguments on the admissibility of the claim, adding that he would decide at that stage whether to call a senior officer as sought by the complainant.

Read full article by Stephen Bourke on the Irish Times website…

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/02/21/air-corps-members-allege-they-were-penalised-for-whistleblowing-by-loss-of-retirement-ceremony/

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Human Health Effects of Trichloroethylene: Key Findings and Scientific Issues

Abstract

Background

Background: In support of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a toxicological review of trichloroethylene (TCE) in September 2011, which was the result of an effort spanning > 20 years.

Objective

We summarized the key findings and scientific issues regarding the human health effects of TCE in the U.S. EPA’s toxicological review.

Methods

In this assessment we synthesized and characterized thousands of epidemiologic, experimental animal, and mechanistic studies, and addressed several key scientific issues through modelling of TCE toxicokinetics, meta-analyses of epidemiologic studies, and analyses of mechanistic data.

Discussion

Toxicokinetic modelling aided in characterizing the toxicological role of the complex metabolism and multiple metabolites of TCE. Meta-analyses of the epidemiologic data strongly supported the conclusions that TCE causes kidney cancer in humans and that TCE may also cause liver cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Mechanistic analyses support a key role for mutagenicity in TCE-induced kidney carcinogenicity.

Recent evidence from studies in both humans and experimental animals point to the involvement of TCE exposure in autoimmune disease and hypersensitivity.

Recent avian and in vitro mechanistic studies provided biological plausibility that TCE plays a role in developmental cardiac toxicity, the subject of substantial debate due to mixed results from epidemiologic and rodent studies.

Conclusion

TCE is carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure and poses a potential human health hazard for noncancer toxicity to the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system, and the developing embryo/fetus.

Read full study below

*****

Persons working with or working in areas using trichloroethylene in Baldonnel have suffered the following illnesses. 

Untimely deaths are marked thus *

      • Brain Tumour*
      • Colorectal Cancer*
      • Crohn’s Disease*
      • Lung Cancer*
      • Multiple Sclerosis
      • Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma*
      • Oesophageal Cancer*
      • Pancreatic Cancer*
      • Parkinson’s Disease
      • Renal Cancer*