Court-martial

The field court-martial of the Finnish 15th Brigade in July 1944.

A court-martial (plural courts-martial, as "martial" is postpositive) is a military court. These military courts can determine punishments for members of the military subject to military law who are found guilty of a crime or may dismiss the charges based on the evidence and the case presented. Most militaries maintain a court-martial system to try cases in which a breach of military discipline may have occurred. Some countries, however, have no court-martial in time of peace: this is the case in France and Germany for example where civil courts are used instead.[1] In addition, courts-martial may be used to try prisoners of war for war crimes. The Geneva Convention requires that POWs who are on trial for war crimes be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding army's own soldiers. Additionally, most navies have a standard court-martial which convenes whenever a ship is lost; this does not necessarily mean that the captain is suspected of wrongdoing, but merely that the circumstances surrounding the loss of the ship would be made part of the official record. Many ship captains will actually insist on a court-martial in such circumstances.

Contents

Composition

A panel of officers and enlisted persons may sit in judgment at a court-martial, while the accused person is usually represented by an officer who may be a military lawyer.

Jurisdiction

Courts martial have the authority to try a wide range of military offences, many of which closely resemble civilian crimes like fraud, theft or perjury. Others, like cowardice, desertion, and insubordination, are purely military crimes. Punishments for military offences range from fines and imprisonment to execution. Military offences are defined in the Army Act, Royal Air Force Act and Royal Navy Act for members of the British Military. Regulations for the Canadian Forces are found in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. For members of the United States offenses are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These offences, their corresponding punishments and instructions on how to run a court-martial, are explained in detail based on each country and/or service.

In Canada

In Canada, there is a two-tier military trial system. Summary trials are presided over by superior officers, while more significant matters are heard by courts martial, which are presided over by independent military judges serving under the independent Office of the Chief Military Judge. Appeals are heard by the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada.

Capital punishment in Canada was abolished generally in 1976, and for military offences in 1998. Harold Pringle was the last Canadian soldier executed, in 1945, for a military offence [2].

In India

Indian Army has four kinds of Court Martial - General Court Martial (GCM), District Court Martial (DCM), Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) and Summary Court Martial (SCM). According to the Army Act, army courts can try personnel for all kinds of offences except for murder and rape of a civilian, which are primarily tried by a civilian court of law.

Introduction

The Indian Army is still following the system of military justice it inherited from the British though the law in the UK has changed to keep pace with the modern practices of justice. The right of the individuals enshrined in the Indian Constitution is not reflected in the laws that govern the personnel of the armed forces. The Army Act 1950 especially the provisions relating to summary courts martial are in essence a continuation of the then prevalent system with all its inherent defects. It denies the accused the minimum degree of decency and fair play that must be guaranteed in any democratic society professing to follow the concept of rule of law and causational system the military justice system off other democracies. Which are moving towards granting all the fundamental rights to the members of the armed forces have led to a demand for reviewing the existing military justice system in India- a system conceived to keep the native army under strict control.

Origin

The provisions for summary courts martial were not introduced into the regular army till after the mutiny in the Bengal Army in 1857. The discipline of the regular Indian Army had, for some time before that catastrophe, seriously deteriorated and it was noticed that irregular troops, especially the Punjab irregular Force, were in this respect in a much better state than their comrades of the regular army. After the suppression of the mutiny the reason for this difference was sought, and it was found to be the position of comparative insignificance occupied by the commandant of a regular regiment, who had practically no power to punish or reward his own men. In contrast the commanding officer of a regiment of the Punjab irregular Force had almost absolute power and could himself deal promptly and effectively with all military offenders. This system appears to have had its origin in the union, frequent in those days on the Frontier, of the functions of deputy commissioner, political officer and military commandant combined in one and the same person. This union of power enabled the commanding officer to convict and sentence a military offender, and thereafter to issue a warrant for the execution of the sentence, which was respected by the civil and prison officials as an emanation from him in his civil and magisterial capacity. When a new Indian Army came to be organized on the ruins of the old, it was realized that the hand of the regimental commanding officer would have to be strengthened if the 'evils' which had affected the Army were to be avoided. With this object in mind summary courts martial were at first introduced tentatively and in 1869 established definitely as part of the legal machinery of the Indian Army. The procedure and powers relation to the summary court-martial were contained in Articles 93-97 and 107 of the Indian Articles of War of 1869.

In the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom ad-hoc courts-martial have, with effect from the implementation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 in 2009, been replaced by a single, standing Court Martial for all three armed forces.

The Court Martial generally tries serious offences, but an offence which would normally be dealt with by a Commanding Officer can be referred to a Court Martial if the accused person requests. The Court generally comprises a Judge Advocate and between three and seven warrant officers and commissioned officers. The members of the court decide the facts of the case, like a jury and, after conviction, vote on sentence along with the judge advocate. Courts-Martial are also used to try civilians subject to service discipline; in those cases, the only military member of the court is the Judge Advocate.

Previously there were two types of courts-martial: the District Court-Martial (DCM) which could punish the accused with up to two years imprisonment, and the General Court-Martial (GCM) which could punish the accused with up to life imprisonment if the offence is serious enough. During World War I there were a further two Courts-Martial: the Regimental Court-Martial (RCM), which rarely sat; and the Field General Court-Martial (FGCM). The FGCM consisted of three officers, one of them normally a Major who acted as president.

Capital punishment

See also: Capital punishment in the United Kingdom

There is no capital punishment in the United Kingdom military. Prior to its complete abolition in 1998 it was available for six offences: Serious Misconduct in Action, Communicating with the Enemy, Aiding the Enemy or Furnishing Supplies, Obstructing Operations or Giving False Air Signals, Mutiny and Incitement to Mutiny or Failure to Suppress a Mutiny, but was never used after the general abolition of the death penalty in 1965.

In the United States

See: Courts-martial in the United States

See also

References

  1. ↑ Note about the military justice, French Senat
  2. ↑ Clark, Andrew (2008-07-14). "A KEEN SOLDIER: THE EXECUTION OF SECOND WORLD WAR PRIVATE HAROLD PRINGLE". National Defence and the Canadian Forces. http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo4/no2/book-livre-04-eng.asp. Retrieved 2010-08-08. 

Further reading

External links