Public good is not served by Army’s silence on court-martialled Ranger

This week, we reveal details of Sergeant Damien

Mc Donough, who was previously the subject of a court martial after committing an assault on two women in 2007, during which he exposed himself to them. We understand he is in the process of leaving the Defence Forces, but at this moment is still a member of the elite Army Ranger wing.

The subsequent court martial in 2009 heard how Sergeant Mc Donough grabbed the women by the head and called one of them ‘a dog’s b **** x’. He also became involved in an affray with another soldier, and was inebriated after drinking from two o’clock on the day in question, to the point where he could not recall when the function ended. This newspaper asked the Defence Forces for a statement on the fact that Sergeant Mc Donough is representing himself on various security industry bodies as an expert in this area, without any reference to his previous court martial. But they refused to discuss it.

Citing security reasons, they told us that it was Defence Forces policy to advise we not only refrain from displaying a photograph of Army Rangers, but also not to name them. In the past, this newspaper has followed this guidance on the basis that we are not in a position to know, at any given moment, the extent of the grave security threats to which the brave men and women who fulfil a vital role in our nation’s security may be subjected.

However, that ethical choice cannot be used to prevent appropriate oversight or interrogation of an issue of public interest, such as how the Defence Forces deal with sexual assaults in their ranks.

In the years since Sergeant Mc Donough’s demotion from corporal to private following the court martial, further details of assaults by serving Defence Forces personnel have come to light thanks to the brave actions of the Women of Honour. One of those women, Karina Molloy, says that the refusal to engage with our questions on the basis of Sergeant Mc Donough’s current position within the forces is a case of the Army closing ranks to protect one of its own.

We will leave it up to our readers to decide whom they support in this dispute, but this newspaper takes ethical concerns seriously. We believe the public interest, the right of people to know about the court martial, outweighs any guidance or request from the Defence Forces not to name Sergeant Mc Donough.

FUNDING ALONE WON’T FIX CARE

THE figures at the heart of the

State’s obligation to pay for care for the most vulnerable in society, children in care, are astounding.

The annual cost is €350m, which breaks down at €330,000 or more per year per child, and, in homes run privately, the figure can come to almost €7,000 per week.

If this money guaranteed that at-risk children in the care of the State were receiving all necessary supports required to overcome a difficult start in life, the figures would be justified.

However, as is clear from repeated horror stories, many children in care are repeatedly failed by the services that have been set up to protect them.

It must be queried if the increase in expenditure is merely a crude attempt to throw money at a problem, rather than tackling underlying issues within the State’s social care system.