Supreme Court dismisses appeal of former member of Defence Forces who was discharged in 2012 for failing to meet mandatory physical fitness requirements on the basis, inter alia, that she was aware of the reasons behind her discharge and, although a recommendation that she be granted further time to prove her fitness was made by a senior officer, this was considered and rejected by the ultimate decision maker; accordingly, her right to natural justice was not breached.
Appeal from High Court refusal of judicial review of decision discharging appellant from Defence Forces - appellant chronically unable to meet physical fitness standards - discharged March 2012 - order of certiorari sought in respect of decision to discharge - appellant now asks Supreme Court to quash decision to discharge - appellant enlisted in 2004 for term of 5 years - appellant passed fitness test in 2005 but failed to pass any between 2006-2009 - appellant put on program designed to help servicemen and servicewomen who have difficulty passing fitness tests in March 2009 - November 2009 five-year term of engagement ended - appellant continued to serve and commenced external fitness program - February 2011, appellant informed she had four months to reach required fitness level - appellant failed to do so - s. 64 of the Defence Acts 1954 - extension of term of engagement considered in July 2011 – passing fitness test a mandatory requirement for extension - numerical grading system set out in Article 234 of Administrative Instruction A10 used to grade fitness - defendant failed to achieve required grade - appellant informed in July 2011 she was not being recommended for extension - s. 73 of the Defence forces Act 1954 - December 2011, appellant informed she would be discharged - appealed decision but appeal refused in April 2012 by Major-General Boyle – just prior to appeal, Brigadier-General Aherne recommended further three-month period to reach required fitness – recommendation of further three-month period not followed by Major-General Boyle - "Redress of Wrongs" application made - redress of wrongs application postponed pending determination of instant proceedings - member of the Defence Forces a statutory officer in employment of State and entitled to principles of natural justice - notice of appeal: whether failure to provide appellant with extension of service ("EOS file") was, in fact, prejudicial - whether recommendation of Brigadier General Aherne that appellant be given further time was not properly before Major-General who ultimately decided to dismiss - whether Major-General Boyle should have informed appellant why he did not follow recommendation of Brigadier-General Aherne – appellant not entitled to all facts and circumstances surrounding making of decision – at any rate appellant aware of facts basing decision – whether Major-General Boyle made aware of Brigadier-General Aherne's recommendation for three further months a question of evidence – High Court satisfied he was – no lapse in standards of rules of natural and constitutional justice – appellant fails on all grounds – appeal dismissed.