swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Armed Forces - From: 1997 To: 1997
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.
Regina v Graham Lisle Times, 26 February 1997; [1997] EWCA Crim 518
20 Feb 1997
CMAC
Criminal Practice, Armed Forces
A distinction is to be made between an objection to the jurisdiction the court, and an alternative charge.
Rules of Procedure (Air Force) 1972 (1972 No 419) 36 37
[ Bailii ]
Findlay v The United Kingdom Times, 27 February 1997; 110/1995/616/706; 22107/93; (1997) 24 EHRR 221; [1997] ECHR 8; [2011] ECHR 1668
25 Feb 1997
ECHR
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Armed Forces
The applicant complained that the members of a court-martial were appointed by the Convening Officer, who was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. The members of the court-martial were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer who had the power in prescribed circumstances to dissolve the court-martial either before or during the trial. The Strasbourg Court noted that all members of the court-martial fell within the chain of command of the Convening Officer with the result that the applicant's doubts about the Tribunal's independence and impartiality could be objectively justified. Held: The procedures are unfair. The convening officer has too much influence over the court. For a Tribunal to be impartial and independent "it must also be impartial for an objective viewpoint, that is it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect." There were fundamental flaws in the court-martial system and "Nor could the defects referred to above be corrected by any subsequent review of proceedings. Since the applicant's hearing was concerned with serious charges classified as "criminal" under both domestic and Convention law, he was entitled to a first instance tribunal which fully met with the requirements of Article 6 (1)".
Army Act 1955 - European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Regina v General Courts-Martial (Warminster Barracks) ex parte Phillip George Wignall [1997] EWHC Admin 690
16 Jul 1997
Admn
Armed Forces
[ Bailii ]
Coyne v The United Kingdom Times, 24 October 1997; [1997] ECHR 73; 25942/94; [1997] ECHR 73
24 Sep 1997
ECHR
Human Rights, Armed Forces
The Court Martial court system was unfair, because the convening officer fulfilled too many roles in the process to allow a fair trial.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage - claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings
Armed Forces Act 1996
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Ministry of Defence v D J Wheeler and Ministry of Defence v S Donald and Ministry of Defence v Nixon and Ministry of Defence v J Joslyn Gazette, 26 November 1997; Times, 19 November 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2647
5 Nov 1997
CA
Employment, Discrimination, Damages, Armed Forces
Damages for unfair dismissal for pregnancy were to be calculated as a sum which the employee would have been earned, less any actual or putative earnings and a discount.
[ Bailii ]
Quinn v Ministry of Defence [1997] EWCA Civ 2865; [1998] PIQR P387
28 Nov 1997
CA
Armed Forces, Personal Injury
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Love Times, 03 December 1997
3 Dec 1997
CMAC
Criminal Sentencing, Armed Forces
Sentencing in courts martial should follow civil practice, but allow for the fact that the trial takes place within the context of military discipline.
Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1996
Regina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Colin James Murray Times, 17 December 1997; [1997] EWHC Admin 1136
15 Dec 1997
QBD
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Hooper J
Human Rights, Natural Justice, Armed Forces
The defendant sought judicial review of his court-martial and of the confirming officers. He said the court should have heard that he committed the offence whist intixicated after taking an anti-malarial drug. The court dd not explain why it had found no causal connection beween the treatment and the offence. Held: There is no over-riding principle of law that reasons must be given for a decision in disciplinary decisions, but fairness will often require them to be given. Does "fairness require in this case that reasons should have been given both as to why the Court reached the conclusion that there was no causal connection and why it decided that the sentence of imprisonment was required rather than some lesser sentence which would not have had the same dire consequences for the Applicant? The answer to that question must be in the affirmative. Are there public interest reasons why reasons should not be required? The only public interest reasons . . . advanced relied upon drawing analogies with other judicial bodies. I accept . . . submissions . . . that the examples which he gave are not analogous."
Army Act 1955 70 - Armed Forces Act 1996 - Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972 (SI 1972/316) 76(1)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Alan Martin (On Appeal From Her Majesty's Courts - Martial Appeal Court); HL 16-Dec-1997 - Gazette, 21 January 1998; [1997] UKHL 56; [1998] AC 917; [1998] 1 All ER 193; [1998] 2 WLR 1; [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 347
