Resumed hearing of appeal against conviction at a court martial – suggestions that directions given by the judge advocate on duress were defective rejected. Now consideration on words used to jury as to attempts to reach a unanimous verdict.
Held: The challenge that the direction given by the Judge Advocate that the Board should ‘try’ to reach a unanimous verdict somehow deprived the court martial and its members of its and their independence and impartiality as a tribunal established by law does not withstand analysis. The Judge Advocate had no jurisdiction to refuse to accept a majority verdict from the Board. However, he was entitled to direct the members to seek or try to return a unanimous verdict if they could. That is what he did. A unanimous verdict is, indeed, preferable, if that is the verdict to which each member can conscientiously come. The direction given by the Judge Advocate did not produce a situation in which a majority of votes in favour of an acquittal (a majority verdict acquittal) would somehow have been rejected or treated as if it could not be returned.
Sir Igor Judge PBD
[2005] EWCA Crim 2750
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Boyd, Hastie, Spear (Courts Martial Appeal Court), Regina v Saunby, Clarkson, English, Williams, Dodds, and others HL 18-Jul-2002
Corts Martial System Complant with Human Rights
The applicants were each convicted by courts martial of offences under civil law. They claimed that the courts martial were not independent tribunals because of the position of the president of the court, and that it was wrong to try a serviceman by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.441053
