No unfairness in procedures used to discharge member of Defence Forces

Judicial review – member of the defence forces seeking to challenge decision to discharge him from the Defence Forces – rank of private - failed a random drugs test – A and B samples tested positive for cocaine – attended a house party but could not account for the results – divergence between sample results – stated that he was willing to undergo targeted drug testing – commanding officer determined that he did not provide a credible explanation for the results – determined that he should be discharged – he appealed – he provided an expert report which criticised the method of analysis of the samples – absence of any evidence of creatinine levels – expert provided alternative reasons for the positive result – body who carried out the analysis of the A sample disputed the criticism in relation to the creatinine levels – during his interview he stated he saw people take drugs - failed in his attempt to elicit support from various persons that attended the party that he was the subject of malicious or accidental administration of drugs – further submissions relating to the issue of the creatinine test – body who carried out the analysis of the first sample then carried out creatinine test on the sample – results were normal – determined that even if they had been above normal this would not affect the presence of a metabolite – Appeals Officer recommended his discharge – he was discharged from the Defence Forces - statutory framework – on a positive test on appeal an appeal’s officer can: a. recommend discharge b. recommend retention c. recommend retention in service conditional on participation in a targeted drug testing process - he argued that his offer to undergo targeted drug testing was not considered – no reasons were offered as to why his offer to undergo drug testing was rejected – duty to give reasons – argued that he was denied fair procedures in that he was not given adequate time to respond to the subsequent report from the body that tested the A sample – argued that the over reporting issue as raised by his expert was never dealt with – Court determined that the argument that his offer to undergo targeted testing was not considered - clear and readily understandable reasons for coming to the conclusion recommending his discharge were offered - only three possible outcomes following a positive drugs test – had to choose one - unreal to suggest that each option had to be analysed and an explanation given as to why it was not being chosen – Court did not accept the proposition that the Appeals Officer had a duty at all times to inform him that he was about to arrive at a decision – did not make a complaint in the ensuing four months – argument that he was taken short contradicted by surrounding events – the over reporting issue is not supported by evidence.