Summary hearing by commanding officer
Most offences by members of the armed forces against service law are dealt with by commanding officers through a summary hearing. [4] A commanding officer may deal with an offence by a summary hearing if the offence is minor, and the accused is of or below the rank of commander in the Navy, lieutenant colonel in the Army or Royal Marines, or wing commander in the Royal Air Force.
Examples of offences which can be dealt with by a commanding officer include being absent without leave (AWOL), insubordination, malingering, conduct prejudicial to good order, ill-treating subordinates, and various offences against civilian law, such as theft, assault, criminal damage, and careless driving. Offences which cannot be dealt with summarily include assisting the enemy, misconduct on operations (which includes a range of offences committed when the enemy is nearby, such as surrendering a position, sleeping on duty, and spreading alarm or despondency), mutiny, and desertion.
A person charged with an offence which could be dealt with by a summary hearing before a commanding officer has the right to choose trial by the Court Martial instead.
If a commanding officer dealing with an offence summarily finds the accused guilty, he can impose punishments including loss of seniority (for an officer), or reduction in rank (for a warrant officer or non-commissioned officer). For lower ranks, he can impose a term of detention in a unit guardhouse, or at the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) in Colchester, of up to 28 days, or 90 days in serious cases, or a requirement to carry out extra work or drill, or loss of entitlement to leave. Alternatively he can impose a fine of up to 28 days' pay, or another minor punishment. [8]
Often in cases involving ratings (Royal Navy), private soldiers (Army), and airmen (RAF) are delegated by commanding officers to officers commanding or, for the Royal Navy, executive officers (XOs) – usually a lieutenant commander (Navy), major (Army and Royal Marines), or squadron leader (RAF). To deal with minor disciplinary matters such as lateness, their powers are restricted to either a fine of seven days' pay, a fine of up to £50, or seven days' restriction of privileges.
Service Civilian Court
The Service Civilian Court replaces the three separate systems (for each of the armed services) of standing civilian courts which were previously established in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Cyprus. [2]
The court has jurisdiction over offences against service law which have been committed outside the British Islands by a civilian who is subject to service discipline, and which, if they had been committed in England and Wales, could be heard in a magistrates' court. Serious offences which, if committed in England and Wales, could only be tried by a Crown Court must be dealt with by the Court Martial. The Service Civilian Court consists of a judge advocate sitting alone.
If the court considers that the nature of the case, or the charge, is sufficiently serious, it can refer the case to be heard by the Court Martial. The defendant can also choose to have their case referred to the Court Martial.
Punishments which can be handed down by the Court include imprisonment for up to 12 months (or 65 weeks for two or more offences), a fine or community service. [13]
Appeals from the Service Civilian Court lie to the Court Martial. An appeal is dealt with by the Court Martial by re-hearing the charge or decision on punishment.
Court Martial
The Armed Forces Act 2006 established the Court Martial as a permanent standing court, effective from 1 November 2009. Previously courts martial were convened on an ad hoc basis. The distinction, applicable in the Army and Royal Air Force, between district courts martial and general courts martial (with the district courts martial having more limited sentencing powers than the general courts martial) was also abolished. [2]
The Court Martial may try any offence against service law, which includes all criminal offences under the law of England and Wales. Procedure is broadly similar to that of the Crown Court in England and Wales. The court is presided over by a judge advocate, and there is a board (similar to a jury) of between three and seven (depending on the seriousness of the offence) officers and warrant officers. Rulings on matters of law, practice, and procedure are made by the judge advocate, whilst findings of guilt or innocence are made by the board by a simple majority of the members. For deliberations on sentence, the judge advocate is joined by the board, which is a distinctive and unique feature of the Court Martial.
The punishments which can be imposed by the Court Martial range from imprisonment in a civilian prison (for any period up to life if the offence warrants it), detention at the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester for two years or less, dismissal from the armed services (with or without disgrace), or an unlimited fine, down to those punishments available to a commanding officer. Someone who has chosen to have a charge heard by the Court Martial rather than summarily by a commanding officer cannot be given a punishment greater than the maximum available to the commanding officer.
When trying a civilian who is subject to service discipline, the Court Martial consists of a judge advocate, and a board comprising civilian members, who do not participate in sentencing; the judge advocate sentences alone in the same way as in a Crown Court. [19] Punishments which can be imposed on a civilian by the Court Martial include imprisonment, a fine or community service, but not service detention. [13]
Non-judicial punishment (NJP) is a disciplinary measure that may be applied to individual military personnel, without a need for a court martial or similar proceedings.
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 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 Courts of England and Wales, supported administratively by His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, are the civil and criminal courts responsible for the administration of justice in England and Wales.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of the system of military justice of the armed forces of the United States. The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power. .. to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.
In the United Kingdom, the Judge Advocate General is a judge responsible for the Court Martial process within the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force. As such the post has existed since 2006; prior to this date the Judge Advocate General's authority related to the Army and the RAF while the Judge Advocate of the Fleet was the equivalent with regard to the Royal Navy.
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.
A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft. Similarly, a wobblette is a crime that can be charged either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, for example, in California, violating COVID-19 safety precautions.
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.
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 violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 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 (RCM), 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.
In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears matters relating to summary offences and some triable either-way matters. Some civil law issues are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2010, there were 320 magistrates' courts in England and Wales; by 2020, a decade later, 164 of those had closed. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
The Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA) is the organisation within the Ministry of Defence, responsible for consideration of cases referred to it by the Service Police and where appropriate the Military Chain of command and where necessary the directing and prosecuting of those cases at Courts Martial worldwide and in the Service Civilian Court. Furthermore, it acts as respondent in the Summary Appeal Court and represents the Crown in the Courts Martial Appeal Court (CMAC).
The Armed Forces Act 2006 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline is an offence against military law in many countries. It has existed in military law since before the 17th century and is an important offence which functions as a catch-all to criminalise offences against military order which are not specified elsewhere.
The main Offences against military law in the United Kingdom are set out in the Armed Forces Act 2006.
The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, is the military justice branch or specialty of the United States Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.
The Victims Protection Act of 2014 is a bill intended to help protect the victims of sexual assault in the military. The bill would allow victims to give a preferences as to whether they would prefers their cases take place in the military or in the civilian justice systems. It also applies these changes to the military academies as well.
The Armed Forces Act 1972 [Act 77), is a Malaysian laws which enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to the establishment, government and discipline of the armed forces of Malaysia.
United Kingdomportal 
