Courts-martial of Canada

Last updated

Courts-martial in Canada are trials conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces. The Chief Military Judge is Colonel Mario Dutil. [1] Such courts martial are authorized under the National Defence Act. [2] Civilians with a military unit also become subject to the courts-martial system. [2]

Trial coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal

In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.

Canadian Armed Forces combined military forces of Canada

The Canadian Armed Forces, or Canadian Forces (CF), are the unified armed forces of Canada, as constituted by the National Defence Act, which states: "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."

The National Defence Act is the primary enabling legislation for organizing and funding Canada's military.

Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the Canadian military for criminal violations of the Code of Service Discipline, which is the Canadian military's criminal code. [3] [2] The constitutionality of military courts-martial was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Généreux, but changes were mandated to ensure judicial independence. [4] It was also determined that off-duty conduct can also fall under a court martial. [5]

The Code of Service Discipline (CSD) is the basis of the Canadian Forces military justice system. The CSD is designed to assist military commanders in maintaining discipline, efficiency, and morale within the Canadian Forces (CF). It is found in Part III of the National Defence Act. The CSD:

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>R v Généreux</i>

R v Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that the government had the constitutional right to create a military justice system that existed in parallel to the regular court system. However, the Supreme Court ruled that that system must comply with the constitutional requirements for judicial independence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Since 2014, decisions of Canada's courts-martial have been available online. [6]

Decisions of Canadian Courts-Martial can be appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, a body made up of civilian judges.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC) hears appeals from Courts-martial of Canada.

Related Research Articles

A court-martial or court martial is a military court or a trial conducted in such a court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. 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 military's own forces. Finally, courts-martial can be convened for other purposes, such as dealing with violations of martial law, and can involve civilian defendants.

Military justice is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces. Many nation-states have separate and distinct bodies of law that govern the conduct of members of their armed forces. Some states use special judicial and other arrangements to enforce those laws, while others use civilian judicial systems. Legal issues unique to military justice include the preservation of good order and discipline, the legality of orders, and appropriate conduct for members of the military. Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the foundation of military law in the United States. It was established by the United States Congress in accordance with the authority given by the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces".

Judge Advocate Generals Corps military service branch concerned with military legal and judicial affairs

The Judge Advocate General's Corps is the branch or specialty of a military concerned with military justice and military law. Officers serving in a JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates. Only the chief attorney within each branch is referred to as the Judge Advocate General; however, individual JAG Corps officers are colloquially known as JAGs.

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is an Article I court that exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States Armed Forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The court reviews decisions from the intermediate appellate courts of the services: the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Court system of Canada an article about the court system of Canada

The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of government, formally known as "The Queen on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

Judicial system of Finland

Under the Constitution of Finland, everyone is entitled to have their case heard by a court or an authority appropriately and without undue delay. This is achieved through the judicial system of Finland.

An Article 32 hearing is a proceeding under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, similar to that of a preliminary hearing in civilian law. Its name is derived from UCMJ section VII Article 32, which mandates the hearing.

Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for criminal violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is the U.S. military's criminal code. However, they can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial, Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.

Judicial system of Turkey

The judicial system of Turkey is defined by Articles 138 to 160 of the 1982 Constitution. Civilian and military jurisdiction are separated. While military courts usually only try military personnel, they can also try civilians in times of martial law and in matters concerning military service.

Armed Forces Act 2006

The Armed Forces Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals

The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA) is the intermediate appellate court for criminal convictions in the U.S. Coast Guard. It is located in Washington, DC.

Courts of South Africa

The courts of South Africa are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in South Africa. They apply the law of South Africa and are established under the Constitution of South Africa or under Acts of the Parliament of South Africa.

The military courts of the United Kingdom are governed by the Armed Forces Act 2006. The system set up under the Act applies to all three armed services: the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force (RAF), and replaces the three parallel systems that were previously in existence.

The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, is the military justice branch or specialty of the U.S. Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.

Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956) and 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, the Court recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty, although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

2011 Helmand Province incident

The 2011 Helmand Province incident was the manslaughter of an injured Taliban insurgent by Alexander Blackman, which occurred on 15 September 2011. Three Royal Marines, known during their trial as Marines A, B, and C, were anonymously tried by court-martial. On 8 November 2013, Marines B and C were acquitted, but Marine A was initially found guilty of murder of the Afghan combatant, in contravention of section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. This made him the first British soldier to be convicted of a battlefield murder whilst serving abroad since the Second World War.

References

  1. ↑ Schmitz, Cristin (10 June 2016). "Military judge will not face court guns". Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 19 October 2016.
  2. 1 2 3 Hassan, Taha (26 November 2015). "Better Know a Court: Canada's Courts Martial". Ultravires. Retrieved 19 October 2016.
  3. ↑ "The Code of Service Discipline and Me". Ottawa: Canadian Armed Forces. 2 March 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2016.
  4. ↑ "Supreme Court of Canada upholds constitutionality of military justice system". CTV News. Bell Media. 19 November 2015. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
  5. ↑ Brewster, Murray (7 Jan 2016). "Canadian war vet faces court martial over rude remark". CBC. Retrieved 19 October 2016.
  6. ↑ "COURT MARTIAL DECISIONS SOON TO BE MADE AVAILABLE WITH DECISIA BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE". Lexum. 21 October 2014. Retrieved 19 October 2016.


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.