The fact that the President of a Court Martial was appointed within the same authority as was prosecuting, did not necessarily mean that the tribunal was not impartial. Such officers were typically appointed at the end of their careers, and they were appointed for a fixed term. There was no history of them being removed, and the circumstances were impartial. The test was not some neurotic distrust, but rather the absence of any appearance of bias on a reasonable view. The system met that standard.
Citations:
Gazette 22-Mar-2001, Times 30-Jan-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1751
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Appealed to – 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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Armed Forces
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135616
