Women of Honour to challenge document restriction at Defence Forces Tribunal

Women of Honour is challenging a restriction on the documents its legal team can review during the Defence Forces Tribunal. The group wants access to full witness statements from complainants, along with supporting documentation that may relate to its members. It says the concern is not simply administrative. The documents may contain evidence needed to understand wider failures in the Defence Forces.

The key issue is who decides what information matters. Diane Byrne said the victims’ legal team wants to make that judgment itself, rather than leaving relevance entirely to the tribunal. The group argues that lawyers who understand the victims’ experiences may identify significance that others could miss. It describes the difference in access between State bodies and the victims’ legal team as particularly troubling.

The group has been granted leave to make its application at the tribunal’s next sitting on Tuesday. It has also warned that it may consider High Court action if the document-access dispute cannot be resolved. The challenge could affect how thoroughly the tribunal examines systemic and institutional failures.

Being granted “leave” means Women of Honour has been allowed to formally bring its document-access challenge before the Defence Forces Tribunal. It is permission to make an application, not a ruling that the group is right. The tribunal will still need to hear the arguments and decide what, if anything, should change.

Judge Ann Power said during Friday’s sitting that the group could make its application at the next sitting on Tuesday. Details of the challenge were circulated to the other legal teams before 5pm on Friday. The full application is scheduled to be heard at 2pm Tuesday by the single-judge tribunal.

This gives the dispute a defined procedural next step. The group can explain why it wants full witness statements and supporting documents, while other legal teams can respond. The hearing may clarify whether the victims’ lawyers should receive broader access, and how evidence is assessed during the tribunal’s examination of Defence Forces complaints processes and culture.

The Defence Forces Tribunal was established after Women of Honour members and other victims alleged that sexism and bullying were widespread in the organisation. They also alleged that cases of sexual assault and rape were inadequately investigated. These allegations were highlighted in a 2021 RTÉ Radio documentary.

The tribunal is now examining how the Defence Forces handled complaints and whether its internal systems worked effectively. Its second module focuses on the efficacy of internal complaints processes and the culture surrounding the making of complaints. That means the tribunal is looking beyond individual incidents to possible systemic and institutional failures.

The tribunal matters because its work may show whether people could report concerns safely and whether complaints received an effective response. Women of Honour is seeking access to evidence that may help its lawyers assess those issues. The second module is due to resume on Tuesday, while a separate High Court challenge concerns financial assistance for the group.

The tribunal is being heard by one judge, Judge Ann Power. The article explicitly describes it as a “single-judge tribunal.” This means the proceeding has one judicial decision-maker rather than a multi-member panel.

The structure is visible in the tribunal’s timetable. Judge Power ruled during Friday’s sitting that Women of Honour could bring its application at the next sitting. The full challenge is scheduled for 2pm on Tuesday, when she will hear the group’s arguments and the responses from the other legal teams involved.

A single-judge structure does not by itself determine the outcome or the quality of the investigation. It does show that responsibility for procedural decisions, including the document-access dispute, rests with one judge. The tribunal is currently in its second module, which will resume Tuesday and examines Defence Forces complaints processes and the culture surrounding complaints.

Women of Honour wants its own legal team to review full witness statements and supporting documents because those materials may contain information relevant to its members. The group says its lawyers should be able to decide what matters to the victims, rather than relying only on the tribunal’s selection of relevant material.

Diane Byrne described the requested access as necessary for a comprehensive, thorough and effective investigation into systemic and institutional failures. The mechanism is straightforward: lawyers can compare statements and documents, identify connections, and assess whether evidence supports wider concerns about complaints handling and Defence Forces culture. Restricted access prevents that independent review.

The dispute is now moving to a formal hearing. The group circulated details of its challenge to the other legal teams before 5pm Friday, and the full application will be heard Tuesday at 2pm. If the issue remains unresolved, Byrne said the group would consider High Court action.

The immediate risk identified by Women of Honour is that important evidence could be missed. If its legal team cannot see full witness statements and supporting documents, lawyers may be unable to recognise details that matter to the victims’ complaints. The group says this could weaken a comprehensive investigation into systemic and institutional failures.

Byrne gave a clear example of the possible consequence: the process could end with important evidence having been available, while the people who understood its significance were never allowed to consider it. The key mechanism is limited comparison and interpretation. Without the full material, lawyers may not connect accounts, identify patterns, or judge how evidence relates to members’ experiences.

The issue is not yet resolved. Judge Ann Power has allowed the group to make a formal application at Tuesday’s sitting. Women of Honour has also said it would consider a High Court challenge if a resolution cannot be reached. The dispute therefore may affect both the tribunal’s evidence review and its wider conclusions.

Access to relevant evidence is a basic fairness principle because decisions should be based on information that affected parties can properly examine. A legal team cannot fully represent victims if it is prevented from reviewing material that may support their complaints. Meaningful participation requires more than being present; it requires a real opportunity to understand and respond to the evidence.

In this case, Women of Honour says its lawyers need full complainant statements and supporting documents. Its concern is that the tribunal may decide what is relevant without giving the victims’ representatives a chance to make their own assessment. Lawyers may notice patterns, links, or context that are important to members but not obvious from a limited selection.

The tribunal has not yet resolved the dispute. Judge Ann Power granted leave for the group to make its application on Tuesday. The result could determine whether the victims’ legal team receives broader access and whether the investigation can address the alleged systemic failures as fully as possible.