Justice and The Army
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1947.tb00053.x |
| Author | J. A. G. Griffith |
| Published date | 01 July 1947 |
| Date | 01 July 1947 |
JUSTICE
AND
THE
ARMY
RECENT
events, occurring in the
Far
East and echoing in
Westminster, have once again drawn public attention to the
administration of justice
in
the Army. The demand that those
convicted should have
a
right
of
appeal to the High
Court
is
based not primarily on the ground that every subject should
be
so
entitled
as
part of his democratic heritage but that
the administration of justice
is
incompetently handled by
unqualified officials and that
a
legal check is therefore necessary.
The demand would find little support if substantial justice
were thought to result from courts martial and
if
it were agreed
that the trials were conducted in
a
proper judicial spirit.
To
what extent then has
a
member of the Army just cause
for
complaint
?
On May
14,
1946,
a
‘mutiny’ occurred at Muar Camp,
Malaya, and as
a
result of the court martial held in August
243
men were convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprison-
ment with hard labour and to be discharged with ignominy.’
On October
10,
1946,
the Secretary of State for
War
informed
the House of Commons that acting on the advice of the Judge
Advocate General he had quashed these convictions,2 and on
October
15
gave his reasons as follows: first, evidence
in
the
majority of cases was allowed to be taken from spokesmen of
groups, contrary to the Rules of Evidence; second, the Judge
Advocate at the trial misdirected the court in law
as
to the
bearing of the evidence in its application to each individual
case
;
and third, he failed to deal with the case of each accused
individually on its own
merit^.^
These irregularities had
apparently passed the scrutiny of the
J.
A.
G.’s
department
in India. Public apprehension was considerable for
if
investi-
gation resulted in this state of affairs being revealed, might
there not in many other cases unlit by the glare
of
publicity
have been similar irregularities and should not the whole
system be investigated
?
It
was true that
a
Committee sitting
in
1938
on
courts martial had reported
:
‘
We cannot
suffi-
ciently emphasise the importance of the result that
our
studied
1
Weekly
Hansard,
No.
27,
cols.
34-42.
2
Ditto,
No.
27,
cols.
368-75.
3
Ditto,
No.
28,
cols.
800-4.
4
Report of the Army and
Air
Force
Courts
Martial Committee,
1938
(Cmd.
6200).
All
footnote references to paragraphs are to
this
report unless otherwise stated.
292
To continue reading
Request your trial