Down 4 Reprogram
18th Dec 2003, 02:49
Looks like the Eurocrats are sticking their noses in again. This from the Telegraph:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Navy was forced by the European Court of Human Rights to suspend all courts martial yesterday until an Act of Parliament can be passed changing the way in which they operate.
It also faces the possibility that every Navy court martial since the Human Rights Act was passed in October 2000 will be quashed.
The European Court ruled that a sailor thrown out of the Navy in 1998 was denied a fair trial because there was no guarantee of the court martial's independence. At the same time it dismissed a similar appeal from a former RAF airman because courts martial conducted by the RAF and the Army are advised by civilian judge-advocates provided by the Lord Chancellor's department.
But Navy courts martial are overseen by ordinary officers with no independent legal advice which cast doubt on their "independence and impartiality", the court ruled.
John Mackenzie, one of the lawyers representing the two men, said the judgment meant "the Royal Navy's court martial system has been kicked into touch. The Navy does not have use of the civilian judge-advocates. It has its own uniformed judge advocate.
"It will now be forced to go to the Government and say we need a very urgent Act of Parliament or we will not be able to conduct any more courts martial.
"What's worse is that every Royal Navy court martial judgment since the Human Rights Act became law will have to be quashed."
The European court examined the cases of two servicemen reduced to the ranks, imprisoned and discharged from the armed forces.
Senior Aircraftsman Graham Cooper, 35, from Birmingham, was sentenced to 56 days, reduced to the ranks and discharged from the RAF by a court martial in 1998.
All but one of the 17 European judges rejected his appeal against the legality of that sentence, ruling that the civilian judge advocate appointed to RAF and Army courts martial was "a significant" guarantee of independence.
Leading Seaman Mark Grieves, now 35, from Plymouth, Devon, was sentenced to three years imprisonment, reduced to the ranks and dismissed from the Navy in 1998 for "maliciously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm". His appeal was upheld because "the lack of a civilian in the pivotal role of judge-advocate deprived a Royal Navy court martial of one of the most significant guarantees of independence". The Strasbourg-based court ordered the Royal Navy to pay Mr Grieves's costs of £5,600.
The courts martial system has been repeatedly changed in accordance with European court rulings. The Army and RAF systems had to be suspended and changed 18 months ago because of a different ruling. But the Navy system can only be changed by an Act of Parliament.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least it looks like the RAF have got it reasonably correct for once - a first time for everything!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Navy was forced by the European Court of Human Rights to suspend all courts martial yesterday until an Act of Parliament can be passed changing the way in which they operate.
It also faces the possibility that every Navy court martial since the Human Rights Act was passed in October 2000 will be quashed.
The European Court ruled that a sailor thrown out of the Navy in 1998 was denied a fair trial because there was no guarantee of the court martial's independence. At the same time it dismissed a similar appeal from a former RAF airman because courts martial conducted by the RAF and the Army are advised by civilian judge-advocates provided by the Lord Chancellor's department.
But Navy courts martial are overseen by ordinary officers with no independent legal advice which cast doubt on their "independence and impartiality", the court ruled.
John Mackenzie, one of the lawyers representing the two men, said the judgment meant "the Royal Navy's court martial system has been kicked into touch. The Navy does not have use of the civilian judge-advocates. It has its own uniformed judge advocate.
"It will now be forced to go to the Government and say we need a very urgent Act of Parliament or we will not be able to conduct any more courts martial.
"What's worse is that every Royal Navy court martial judgment since the Human Rights Act became law will have to be quashed."
The European court examined the cases of two servicemen reduced to the ranks, imprisoned and discharged from the armed forces.
Senior Aircraftsman Graham Cooper, 35, from Birmingham, was sentenced to 56 days, reduced to the ranks and discharged from the RAF by a court martial in 1998.
All but one of the 17 European judges rejected his appeal against the legality of that sentence, ruling that the civilian judge advocate appointed to RAF and Army courts martial was "a significant" guarantee of independence.
Leading Seaman Mark Grieves, now 35, from Plymouth, Devon, was sentenced to three years imprisonment, reduced to the ranks and dismissed from the Navy in 1998 for "maliciously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm". His appeal was upheld because "the lack of a civilian in the pivotal role of judge-advocate deprived a Royal Navy court martial of one of the most significant guarantees of independence". The Strasbourg-based court ordered the Royal Navy to pay Mr Grieves's costs of £5,600.
The courts martial system has been repeatedly changed in accordance with European court rulings. The Army and RAF systems had to be suspended and changed 18 months ago because of a different ruling. But the Navy system can only be changed by an Act of Parliament.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least it looks like the RAF have got it reasonably correct for once - a first time for everything!