Courts martial of Canada

Last updated

Courts martial of Canada are trials conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces. Such courts martial are authorized under the National Defence Act. [1] Civilians with a military unit also become subject to the courts-martial system. [1]

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. [2] [1] 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. [3] It was also determined that off-duty conduct can also fall under a court martial. [4]

Since 2014, decisions of Canada's courts martial have been available online. [5]

Decisions of Canadian courts martial can be appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, a body made up of civilian judges, with a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, by leave of the Supreme Court.

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 Conventions require 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 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.

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".

Military discharge Release from military service

A military discharge is given when a member of the armed forces is released from their obligation to serve. Each country's military has different types of discharge. They are generally based on whether the persons completed their training and then fully and satisfactorily completed their term of service. Other types of discharge are based on factors such as the quality of their service, whether their service had to be ended prematurely due to humanitarian or medical reasons, whether they had been found to have drug or alcohol dependency issues and whether they were complying with treatment and counseling, and whether they had demerits or punishments for infractions or were convicted of any crimes. These factors affect whether they will be asked or allowed to re-enlist and whether they qualify for benefits after their discharge.

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Federal tribunal for appeal of lower military courts

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.

The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, 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.

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

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.

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.

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:

Judicial system of Turkey National court system of the Republic of Turkey

The judicial system of Turkey is defined by Articles 138 to 160 of the Constitution of Turkey.

Armed Forces Act 2006 United Kingdom legislation

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

Judiciary of Chile

The judiciary of the Republic of Chile includes one Supreme Court, one Constitutional Court, 16 Courts of Appeal, 84 Oral Criminal Tribunals and Guarantee Judges; 7 Military Tribunals; over 300 Local Police Courts; and many other specialized Tribunals and courts in matter of family, labor, customs, taxes, electoral affairs, etc.

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.

Judiciary of Indonesia Judicial system in Indonesia

The Judiciary of Indonesia constitutionally consists of the Supreme Court of Indonesia, the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, and the lesser court system under the Supreme Court. These lesser courts are categorically subdivided into the public courts, religious courts, state administrative courts, and military courts.

Military courts of the United Kingdom

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 (RN), the British 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, Marine Corps and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.

Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956), 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 killing Manslaughter of a wounded Taliban insurgent by Alexander Blackman

The 2011 Helmand Province killing was the manslaughter of a wounded 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 Blackman was initially found guilty of murder of the Afghan insurgent, 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.

United States v. Briggs, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) erred in ruling that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape committed between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years. The Court, with the exception of Justice Amy Coney Barrett who did not participate on the case, ruled unanimously that under the Uniform Code, such crimes that are "punishable by death" under the Code do not have a statute of limitations unlike similar civilian crimes.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Hassan, Taha (26 November 2015). "Better Know a Court: Canada's Courts Martial". Ultravires. Retrieved 19 October 2016.
  2. "The Code of Service Discipline and Me". Ottawa: Canadian Armed Forces. 2 March 2015. Retrieved 19 October 2016.
  3. "Supreme Court of Canada upholds constitutionality of military justice system". CTV News. Bell Media. 19 November 2015. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
  4. Brewster, Murray (7 Jan 2016). "Canadian war vet faces court martial over rude remark". CBC. Retrieved 19 October 2016.
  5. "COURT MARTIAL DECISIONS SOON TO BE MADE AVAILABLE WITH DECISIA BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE". Lexum. 21 October 2014. Retrieved 19 October 2016.