Australian Military Court

Last updated

The Australian Military Court (AMC) was a military service tribunal established in 2007 with the primary aim of maintaining military justice within the Australian Defence Force. In August 2009, the High Court of Australia ruled that the AMC was unconstitutional according to the Constitution of Australia, putting the 171 cases the court had tried in doubt. In May 2010, the Australian Government announced a new Military Court of Australia (MCA) to replace the provisional system established after the dissolution of the AMC and to provide an appropriate military judiciary for the Australian Defence Force.

Contents

Establishment

The Australian Military Court was created when the Parliament of Australia passed the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, adding Section 114 to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, [1] and commenced on 1 October 2007. It replaced the previous systems of individually convened trial by court-martial or defence force magistrate.

Structure

The Australian Military Court consisted of a Chief Military Judge, two permanent Military Judges, and a part-time panel of reserve Military Judges. The first Chief Military Judge was Brigadier Ian Westwood, who was sworn in with the two Permanent Military Judges (Colonel Peter Morrison and Lieutenant Colonel Jennifer Woodward) on 1 October 2007. [2]

Depending on the nature and severity of the offence, the Defence Force Discipline Act made provision for cases to be tried before a single judge, or in more serious cases (such as those committed in the face of the enemy, mutiny, desertion or commanding a Service offence), a jury. Although based in Canberra, the AMC was able to conduct trials anywhere in Australian territories and overseas in operational areas where Australian forces were serving. [3]

High Court challenge

The constitutional validity of the Australian Military Court was successfully challenged in the High Court of Australia by a former Royal Australian Navy Leading Seaman, in the case Lane v Morrison commencing on 16 January 2009. [4]

In August 2005, the sailor and three other military personnel were on a recruitment drive in the Queensland town of Roma. After a game of golf and consumption of a quantity of beer, he was alleged to have "tea-bagged" a sergeant from the Australian Army, that is, placed his testicles on the man's forehead as he slept in a motel bed. Two years later, the Navy charged him with indecent assault on a superior officer, and he was scheduled to be tried before the Australian Military Court on 25 March 2008. [5]

On 26 August 2009, the High Court ruled that the Australian Military Court was not a Chapter III Court for the purposes of the Constitution of Australia, and that the legislation creating it was invalid as it was a court of record which "[was] to exercise the judicial power of the commonwealth" by making binding and authoritative judgements independent of the Australian Defence Force chain of command. [6]

Proposed Military Court of Australia

On 24 May 2010 the Australian Federal Government through the Attorney-General Robert McClelland and Defence Minister John Faulkner announced a proposal for a new Military Court of Australia, [7] to replace the interim measures put in place after the High Court invalidated the Australian Military Court in 2008.

The court would have been independent of the military, with all court appointees having either past military experience or knowledge of the services. Faulkner stated that the proposed new specialist court would deliver "a system of military justice for ADF members that combines the necessary independence and constitutional protections for the judiciary with an understanding of the vital importance of military discipline in the operation of our armed forces. "Timely and fair trials in the new court will enhance military justice and promote discipline in the ADF, which in turn will contribute to improved morale and operational effectiveness.

While judicial officers with knowledge of the military system are necessary, they may not be currently serving Defence Force or Reserve members. McClelland says these measures will ensure the court remains independent. "Judicial officers appointed to the new Military Court of Australia will have the same independence and constitutional protections that apply in other federal courts", he said.

A bill setting out the shape and structure of the court was introduced to Parliament in 2012. [8] [9]

The bill lapsed with the prorogation of Parliament for the 2013 Australian federal election and has not been reintroduced. [10] In the absence of a military court, the current military justice system involves the use of courts martial and "Defence Force Magistrate" trials. [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Court of Australia</span>

The Family Court of Australia was a superior Australian federal court of record which deals with family law matters, such as divorce applications, parenting disputes, and the division of property when a couple separate. Together with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, it covered family law matters in all states and territories of Australia except for Western Australia, which has a separate Family Court. Its core function was to determine cases with the most complex law, facts and parties, to cover specialised areas in family law, and to provide national coverage as the national appellate court for family law matters.

Military justice is the legal system that governs the conduct of the active-duty personnel of the armed forces of a country. In some nation-states, civil law and military law are distinct bodies of law, which respectively govern the conduct of civil society and the conduct of the armed forces; each body of law has specific judicial procedures to enforce the law. Among the legal questions unique to a system of military justice are the practical preservation of good order and discipline, command responsibility, the legality of orders, war-time observation of the code of conduct, and matters of legal precedence concerning civil or military jurisdiction over the civil offenses and the criminal offenses committed by active-duty military personnel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Australia's Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Callinan</span> Former Justice of the High Court of Australia

Ian David Francis Callinan AC KC is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lionel Murphy</span> Australian politician

Lionel Keith Murphy QC was an Australian politician, barrister, and judge. He was a Senator for New South Wales from 1962 to 1975, serving as Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government, and then sat on the High Court from 1975 until his death.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

The Constitution Alteration Bill 1946, was a successful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth power over a range of social services. The question was put to a referendum in the 1946 Australian referendum with two other (unrelated) questions. It was carried and inserted into section 51 of the Australian Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courts of Scotland</span> Administration of justice in Scotland

The courts of Scotland are responsible for administration of justice in Scotland, under statutory, common law and equitable provisions within Scots law. The courts are presided over by the judiciary of Scotland, who are the various judicial office holders responsible for issuing judgments, ensuring fair trials, and deciding on sentencing. The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland, subject to appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and the High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court, which is only subject to the authority of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on devolution issues and human rights compatibility issues.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian legal system</span> Codified and uncodified forms of law of Australia

The legal system of Australia has multiple forms. It includes a written constitution, unwritten constitutional conventions, statutes, regulations, and the judicially determined common law system. Its legal institutions and traditions are substantially derived from that of the English legal system. Australia is a common-law jurisdiction, its court system having originated in the common law system of English law. The country's common law is enforced uniformly across the states.

In Australian constitutional law, Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called the defence power, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to the defence of Australia and the control of the defence forces. The High Court has adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power, which emphasises the purpose of the legislation, primarily the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Court of Australia</span> Australian superior federal court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance by single judges. The court includes an appeal division referred to as the Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in most legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

<i>Al-Kateb v Godwin</i> 2004 decision of the High Court of Australia

Al-Kateb v Godwin, was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 6 August 2004 that the indefinite detention of a stateless person was lawful. The case concerned Ahmed Al-Kateb, a Palestinian man born in Kuwait, who moved to Australia in 2000 and applied for a temporary protection visa. The Commonwealth Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the application was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court. In 2002, Al-Kateb declared that he wished to return to Kuwait or Gaza. However, since no country would accept Al-Kateb, he was declared stateless and detained under the policy of mandatory detention.

<i>Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth, also known as the Communist Party Case, was a legal case in the High Court of Australia in 1951 in which the court declared the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 unconstitutional and invalid as being beyond the power of the Parliament. Notable Australian academic George Winterton described the case as "undoubtedly one of the High Court's most important decisions."

The Supreme Court of Christmas Island was the highest court for Christmas Island, an external territory of Australia. The court was originally established in 1958 after sovereignty over the island was transferred from the United Kingdom to Australia. The court had jurisdiction to deal with all serious crimes and major civil claims for damages occurring on the island. The court was abolished on 10 May 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military Court of Australia</span>

The Military Court of Australia was a proposed court of military justice for the Australian Defence Force. It would have replaced the previous Australian Military Court which was deemed unconstitutional by the High Court of Australia with legal grounding under Chapter 3 of the Australian Constitution. The structure of the court was drafted by the Australian Department of Defence and Attorney-General's Department and was introduced as a legislative bill to Parliament in 2012.

The Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is an office created by the Defence Force Discipline Act (1982), held by a judge or former judge of a federal court or a state supreme court. The appointment of JAG is made by the Governor-General-in-Council. The JAG may make procedural rules for tribunals that operate within the Navy, Army, and Air Force, provide the final legal review of proceedings within the ADF, participate in the appointment of judge advocates, Defence Force magistrates, presidents and members of courts martial, and legal officers for various purposes, and reporting upon the operation of laws relating to the discipline of the ADF.

The Polish Supreme Court Disciplinary Chamber law is legislation that defines conduct standards for the majority of Polish judiciary, namely the common and military courts and the Supreme Court, albeit excluding the administrative courts and the tribunals. It was enacted by the Sejm on 20 December 2019.

References

  1. ↑ Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) s 114.
  2. ↑ Australian Military Court opens, The Daily Telegraph , 3 October 2007.
  3. ↑ Military Justice, Department of Defence (Australia).
  4. ↑ Lane v Morrison [2009] HCA 29 , (2009) 239 CLR 230(26 August 2009), High Court.
  5. ↑ Nicholson, Brendan: The curious case that sank a court system, The Age , 27 August 2009.
  6. ↑ 'Teabagging' case challenge: court ruled invalid, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 26 August 2009.
  7. ↑ Woodley, Naomi: Government announces new military court, ABC News (Australia), 24 May 2010.
  8. ↑ Military Court of Australia Bill 2012 (Cth).
  9. ↑ Roxon, Nicola. "Legislation to establish Military Court of Australia". Attorney- General for Australia, the hon Nicola Roxon MP. Archived from the original on 3 December 2012. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  10. 1 2 Letts, David (29 November 2013). "ADF ain't broke, don't fix it". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 13 January 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.