Army officer goes before military court charged with sexual assault

An army officer has gone on trial before a military court charged with a series of sexual assaults on two female soldiers following a barbeque at a military barracks two years ago.

The defendant, who cannot be named by order of Military Judge, Colonel Michael Campion, pleaded not guilty to two charges of sexually assaulting a female non-commissioned officer shortly before midnight on June 25th, 2020 outside a building within a Defence Forces base which also cannot be identified.

The officer denied placing one hand around the NCO’s back and using his other hand to pull her head towards him leading her to believe he was attempting to kiss her and separately pulling her head towards his genital area.

The court heard the accused, a married man with children, was brought to the officer’s mess on the base after being found asleep in a drunken state outside a gymnasium at the barracks.

Can we finally say goodbye to shaming women for letting their hair go grey?

---

100 great restaurants and places to eat around Ireland this summer

---

Robert De Niro’s raging at Trump outside courthouse was an extraordinary moment in American public life

---

Midlands-North-West: Battle for final seat could end with a small party making a breakthrough

---

The accused denied three counts of sexually assaulting another female NCO a short time later in the officer’s mess including accusations that he had placed both his arms around her torso in an inappropriate manner and without her consent as well as subsequently moving his open palms up and down her back while saying: “Come on, come on.”

He also denied moving towards the alleged victim in a manner which led her to apprehend that she was going to be sexually assaulted.

The officer, who faced a total of 17 separate charges, appeared on Friday at the Military Justice Centre in McKee Barracks in Dublin before a rare sitting of a General Court Martial comprising a military judge and board – the military equivalent of a jury – which are used for cases involving the most serious offences and those involving senior-ranking officers.

He admitted a total of five charges including two offences of assault, one of which involved forcibly grabbing the left wrist of one female soldier.

The officer pleaded guilty to another charge of assaulting the other female NCO by placing his hands around her torso as an alternative to one of the sexual assault charges which stated the act was done in an inappropriate manner.*

He also pleaded guilty to two counts of drunkenness contrary to Section 142 of the Defence Act 1954.

The court heard the accused was found asleep on a chair, while in uniform, outside the gymnasium and was unable to speak coherently when addressed by other officers.

He also pleaded guilty to a charge of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline contrary to Section 168 of the Defence Act 1954 by admitting he had said “I’m a p***k” to them.

However, he denied two other similar charges of using unbecoming words where he was accused of replying “Me dick” and “Me cock” when addressed by the other soldiers.

The accused pleaded not guilty to two other Section 168 offences where he is charged with becoming aggressive and telling two male soldiers who witnessed some of the incident to “f**k off” as well as asking them “do you know who I am.”

Extensive reporting restrictions on the identity of soldiers, the location of the incident and other evidence relating to military details were imposed by the judge on foot of an application by counsel for the Director of Military Prosecutions, Seán Coffey BL.

Col Campion also extended the restrictions on publication of such information to all social media platforms after hearing that the names of the parties had previously been referenced in chats in a Whatsapp group.

The trial before a military board of five male and two female senior ranking officers composed of army, Naval Service and Air Corps personnel is expected to last around two weeks.

Under court martial rules, convictions require at least a 5-2 verdict of the board.

*This article was amended on Tuesday, September 13th, 2022