Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T23:20:44.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Courts-Martial Appeals in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

K. E. Enderby
K. E. Enderby*
Affiliation:
School of General Studies, Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1955 the Commonwealth Government passed the Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1955 setting up in Australia a Tribunal to be known as the Courts-Martial Appeal Tribunal. This gave the ultimate review of courts-martial (save that of 'pardon') to civilian lawyers, whereas previously it had been exercised bythe Service concerned itself. The principles to be applied in determining appeals were set out in the Act and are similar to those set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.S.W.)

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 1964 , pp. 95 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author acknowledges the assistance he has received from Wing Commander D. B. Nichols, Director of Legal Services, Royal Australian Air Force. This assistance does not relieve the author of sole responsibility for any opinions expressed or errors committed.

References to ‘ the Act’ are to the Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1955 (Cth), and references to ‘regulation’ to regulations made under that Act.

References

1 S. 23.

2 S. 6.

3 S. 8.

4 By 1962 the United States Court of Military Appeals had considered some 15,000 petitions, the United Kingdom Courts-Martial Appeal Court 305 applications for leave to appeal, Canada 63 and New Zealand 9. Some of these figures, being based on judgments given, may not be accurate.

5 Defence Act 1903-1956, s. 88 (Cth)

6 R. v. Aughet (1918) 34 T.L.R. 302, 13 Cr. App. R.I0l; Army Acts. 162 (U.K.)(1881).

7 S. 41.

8 Cf. Parker v. The Queen (1963) 37 A.L.J.R. 3.

9 See examples of cross-examination by the judge advocate in the appeal of Schneider infra p.99 and the appeal of Feiss infra p. 102.

10 R. v. Hammond (1941) 28 Cr. App. R. 84.

11 S. 20(2).

12 See the agenda for the 1963 Australian Army Legal Corps Conference in Canberra.

13 SS. 24-28.

13A Not so in Australia.

14 R. v. Linzee [1956] 3 All E.R. 980, 981-982.

15 Infra p. 113.

16 Cf. Jones v. National Coal Board [1957] 2 Q.B. 55.

17 See Nash v. Rochford R.D.C. [1917] 1 K.B. 384, 393 per Scrutton L.J., and the appeal of Schneider supra p. 99.

18 (1955) 93 C.L.R. 493, 514.

19 [1924] 1 K.B. 256, 259.

20 [1927] 2 K.B. 475, 488-489.

21 [1947] K.B. 321.

22 [1908] I.R. 285, 294.

23 [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1046, 1048.

24 (1953) 88 C.L.R. 100, 116.

25 (1959) 32 A.L.J.R. 356, 360; (1959) 101 C.L.R. 226, 236-237.

26 (1959) 32 A.L.J.R. 361; (1959) 101 C.L.R. 239.

27 Supra D.25.

28 Supra p. 99.

29 [1957] 2 Q.B. 55.

30 [1955] V.L.R. 47.

31 [1945] P. 15.

32 R. v. Harris [1927] 2 K.B. 587, 594; Shaw v. The Queen (1952) 85 C.L.R. 365.

33 [1909] V.L.R. 497, 527.

34 See s. 37.

35 [1953] 2 All E.R. 685.

36 Archbold on Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases (35th ed. 1962) SSe 422, 435.

37 Winsor v. The Queen (1886) L.R. 1 Q.B. 390, 395.

38 R. v. Lewis (1909) 2 Cr. App. R. 180; Reg. v. Charlesworth (1861) 1 B. & S. 460; 121 E.R. 786.

39 Not applicable in Australia.

40 [1953] 2 All E.R. 685.

41 (1872) 124.

42 On the effect of nolle prosequi see Commonwealth Life Assurance Society Ltd. v. Smith (1938) 59 C.L.R. 527, 534.

43 Cf. McManamy v. Fleming (1889) 15 V.L.R. 337; McKeering v. McIlroy, Ex parte Mcllroy [1915] St. R. Qd. 85.

44 See Rule of Procedure 26.

45 See Stirland v. D.P.P. [1944] A.C. 315, 321 per Viscount Simon L.C.; R. v. Cohen and Bateman (1909) 2 Cr. App. R. 197 ; R. v. Haddy [1944] K.B. 442.

46 May v. O'Sullivan (1955) 92 C.L.R. 654, 658.

47 Holford, v. The Melbourne Tramway and Omnibus Co. Ltd. [1909]Google Scholar V.L.R. 497, 527.

48 The Times 6 February 1962.

49 See Ziems, v. The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957)Google Scholar 97 C.L.R. 279.

50 Supra p. 99.

51 (1960) 102 C.L.R. 353, 359.

52 [1948] 2 K.B. 173.

53 Woolmington v. D.P.P. [1935] A.C. 462; Thomas v. The Queen (1960) 102 C.L.R. 584; May v. O'Sullivan (1955) 92 C.L.R. 654, 658.

54 Thomas v. The Queen (1960) 102 C.L.R. 584.

55 [1957] Criminal Law Review 47.

56 See the appeal of Cory [1963] Criminal Law Review 517, where the appellant served his full term of imprisonment before succeeding in the English Courts-Martial Appeal Court.

57 See the appeal of Feiss supra p. 102.

58 [1962] A.C. 220, 281-282.

59 (1955-1956) 20 Courts-Martial Reports 272.

60 Ibid. 273.

61 (1958-1959) 26 Courts-Martial Reports 417.

62 (1961) No. 18, unreported.

63 (1953) No. 21, unreported.

64 [1962] A.C. 220, 289.

65 (1954) 15 Courts-Martial Reports 596, 597.

66 (1957) No.4, unreported.

67 (1961) No. 20, unreported.

68 Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents (2nd ed. 1920) 723.

69 United States v. Norris (1952-1953) 8 Courts-Martial Reports 36.

70 Reg. v. Phillips (1961) No. 20, unreported.

71 (1960) 102 C.L.R. 584.

72 (1963) 37 A.L.J.R. 3, 11-12.