Courts Martial Appeal Court
Date | 01 July 1969 |
Published date | 01 July 1969 |
DOI | 10.1177/002201836903300304 |
Subject Matter | Article |
Courts
Martial
Appeal
Court
NO
JURISDICTION
TO
RE-OPEN
CASE
R. o.
Grantham
The
preliminary point argued in R. o,
Grantham
(1969, 2
W.L.R. 1083) raised a point upon which there is no authority in
relation either to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court or to the Court
of
Criminal Appeal or to the Court
of
Appeal (Criminal Division).
The
applicant was convicted by a general court-martial
of
murder
and
one question which arose at his trial was whether one Marks,
who
had
given him a pistol,
had
also given him ammunition. He was
convicted
and
his application for leave to appeal was dismissed;
but
he later made afurther application for leave to appeal
and
for extension of time for application
and
applied to call further
evidence, to the effect
that
Marks
had
later stated to a fellow-
prisoner
that
he
had
given
Grantham
no ammunition,
but
had
himself loaded the pistol without informing Grantham.
By s.8 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act, 1968, it is provided
that
aconvicted person may appeal with leave
of
the court;
and
by s.9 it is further provided
that
leave shall not be given except
upon
an application properly made within the prescribed time,
although the courtisempowered to extend the time. These provisions,
like those relating to the Court of Criminal Appeal
and
its successor,
have meant
that
the Court has from time to time permitted a case
to be re-listed where some procedural defect in the original disposal
of the matter later came to
light-as
when counsel failed to appear
or the papers went astray in the post. But, in
Grantham's
case
(supra),
Widgery L.J. pointed
out
that
this was quite adifferent matter
from an application or appeal which
had
been effectively disposed
of
on the merits.
In
such a case, it has always been assumed that,
if
the court has once disposed of the
matter
on the merits, it is then
functus
officio.
If, at a later date, new matter comes to light, the
proper course is then to petition the Secretary of State who may
then exercise his powers
of
referring a case to the Court.
Grantham's
counsel, however, sought to show
that
the Court itself
had
juris-
diction to undertake a second hearing, without the intervention of
the Secretary of State. He relied on the Court's power to act not-
186
To continue reading
Request your trial