Disciplinary Uniformity in Uniform—A Success of the Human Rights Act 1998?
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2008.72.2.489 |
| Date | 01 April 2008 |
| Published date | 01 April 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Disciplinary Uniformity in
Uniform—A Success of the
Human Rights Act 1998?
Chris Gale*
Abstract Apart from an awareness of shameful treatment to some shell-
shocked soldiers on active duty in the First World War, the subjects of
military discipline in general and courts-martial in particular are unlikely
to permeate the consciousness of the public at large or, indeed, the vast
majority of criminal lawyers. This article explores some of the history of
both, the current position in relation to courts-martial and the planned
reforms under the Armed Forces Act 2006. That the Human Rights Act
1998 exposed some of the anomalities and worst practices of courts-
martial is undeniable. It seems equally likely that the 1998 Act was at least
a catalyst for the wholesale review and modernisation of military dis-
cipline carried out by the 2006 Act.
Keywords Courts-martial; Armed forces; Military; Human rights;
Codes of practice
In the UK, the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force have
operated within separate statutory frameworks of discipline which apply
at all times wherever in the world members of each service are serving.
The respective bases for these systems are the Army Act 1955, the Air
Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Collectively they are
known as the Service Discipline Acts (SDAs). The SDAs are concerned
largely, but not exclusively, with discipline.
Although each of the services has its own system, the general struc-
ture of these systems and many of their details are very similar. They all
make provision so that members of the services can be investigated, tried
and punished for any criminal offence under the law of England and
Wales, wherever in the world it is committed. These are usually known
as ‘criminal conduct offences’. Each of the three service systems also
provides for some offences which are peculiar to service in the armed
forces. These offences mainly relate to discipline, for example, insubor-
dination and disobedience to lawful commands. They are usually re-
ferred to as ‘disciplinary offences’.
A Commanding Officer (CO) has a central role in maintaining dis-
cipline, and every member of the armed forces has a CO for disciplin-
ary purposes. Accordingly, COs in all the services have defined discip
linary powers to deal with certain disciplinary and criminal conduct
offences.
The great majority of matters are disposed of in this way. A CO has
powers of punishment up to 60 days’ detention (Army or RAF)1or 90
* Director of Legal Studies, Head of Bradford University Law School; e-mail:
c.gale@bradford.ac.uk.
1 Army Act 1955, s. 83(2)(d) and Air Force Act 1955, s. 76.
170 The Journal of Criminal Law (2008) 72 JCL 170–177
doi:1350/jcla.2008.72.2.489
To continue reading
Request your trial