More than 300 people have come forward to offer information in relation to allegations of sexual abuse and other complaints within the Defence Forces. A tribunal investigating how complaints were dealt with by the organisation took evidence at public hearings for the first time on Wednesday. Tribunal barrister Michael Cush said it would face a “formidable” task in coming to its conclusions. He said a total of 312 witnesses had responded to a call for information and the tribunal had generated 226,000 pages of materials to date. Some 190 individuals have been interviewed, several more than once, including 17 individuals who had been responsible for handling complaints within the Defence Forces. The tribunal was established in response to concerns raised by an RTÉ Radio 1 documentary, titled Women of Honour, broadcast in 2021. It alleged sexism and bullying in the organisation was widespread and that these issues, as well as cases of sexual assault and rape, were inadequately investigated. The tribunal’s sole member is Judge Ann Power, who is to look at complaints procedures in the Defence Forces from January 1st, 1983, to June 2024. “The sheer scale of this task in hand cannot be overstated,” Cush said on Wednesday. “This tribunal is tasked with investigating multiple processes in relation to complaints of abuse over four decades. This is a significant period of time.” Cush said the tribunal had been given three years to make its findings. Therefore, he said, it had the discretion to consider a sample of evidence rather than the entirety of it. He stressed it would not be deciding the merits of allegations of sexual abuse, but rather how complaints about abuse were handled by the Defence Forces. It will also consider why some members felt they could not complain. The tribunal will not be allowing the alleged perpetrators of sexual violence or their accusers to be named. However, he said it was necessary for those who claim they were sexually assaulted to come forward and give evidence in order to ascertain the seriousness of the abuse and how their complaints were handled. The tribunal is also examining other historical complaints within the Defence Forces. One is about conditions in the Army Apprentice School in Devoy Barracks, Naas, between 1989 and 1992. Thirty-six witnesses will give evidence in this module. It will also examine responses to the prescription of Larium, an antimalarial drug given to members of the organisation for overseas deployment. Hundreds of serving and former members have taken actions against the Department of Defence alleging they were prescribed a medication known to cause psychiatric episodes. A fourth module will look at the issue of hazardous chemicals within the Air Corps headquarters at Casement Aerodrome in Baldonnel. Giving evidence at the tribunal, Capt Kjell Arne Bratli, a former parliamentary commissioner for the Norwegian armed forces, said the fundamental question was whether an organisation such as the Irish Defence Forces “can effectively self-regulate in relation to the most serious forms of misconduct”. “The evidence before the tribunal suggests that it is not,” he said. “Did the system in practice provide personnel who had suffered harm with an accessible, independent and effective means of seeking justice? For most of the period under review, the honest answer to that question is no.” Bratli said it was his opinion that Ireland should get rid of its court martial system for trying serious criminal activity within the Defence Forces. Norway had abolished the court martial system shortly after the second World War and he estimated that only eight or nine European countries, Ireland included, retained the system. “Criminal actions should be dealt with by the police. I prefer the system we have, I put more trust in the criminal system,” he told the tribunal. “It really feels strange that there should be a different system. In a democratic, open society, do we really need two systems of justice?” The tribunal continues on Thursday.