Majority court martial verdict not breach of right to fair trial

11 January 2011 by

Twaite, Re Appeal against conviction [2010] EWCA Crim 2973 – Read judgment

In an interesting decision on fair trial rights under article 6 of the European Convention, the Court of Appeal been ruled that a court martial conviction by majority neither not inherently unsafe or in breach of human rights.

Mr Twaite had been accused fraud while serving in the armed forces. He and his fiancée had been given particular military accommodation on the basis that they were getting married on 28 August 2008. In a form which Mr Twaite submitted he had allegedly been dishonest by stating that he was getting married on that date. In fact he did not marry until a year later.

The Board of a Court Martial, a special type of court which deals with military offences, convicted him of the offence on the basis of a majority verdict. This is when not all members of the Board are satisfied that the accused person is guilty, but the majority are of the opinion that he is. In different courts, the majority must be a certain number before the person is convicted.

Article 6 of the ECHR provides the right to a fair trial and goes into some detail as to what this entails. It does not cover the topic of majority verdicts and their relative fairness compared with unanimous decisions. This case raised the question of whether a majority verdict satisfies the requirements of Article 6.

In this case four members of the Board had considered Mr Twaite guilty, and one member had not.

The Article 6 Question

Mr Twaite had been tried for a serious offence which could result in a substantial custodial sentence, if convicted. In criminal trials, including before a Court Martial, the jury or Board must be satisfied beyond reasonable  doubt that a defendant is guilty of the offence before returning a verdict of guilty. The argument that Article 6 is violated by majority verdicts was that overriding the views of a minority of members of the Board or jury which does not consider that a defendant is guilty, suggests that there are objective grounds for reasonable doubt.

The Court noted that the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) and the European Court of Human Rights had dealt with a number of cases which involved majority verdicts and raised questions about Article 6. Although the precise question asked in this case had not been raised, at no point had the majority verdict provisions been criticised as inherently unfair.

Further, the Court Martial system has in place a wide range of measures to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Board. These safeguards make the process fair. That process involves,

Each member of the Board … conscientiously reaching the decision which he or she believes to be right in the context of the evidence, and the discussion between the members. This involves addressing and evaluating the arguments of those who suggest that there may be a reasonable doubt about guilt” (Paragraph 27).

The court ultimately found that a decision of guilt by  majority is not in itself in breach of the right to a fair trial. However, it did agree with the secretary of state’s submission that it should never be known that a defendant has been acquitted by a majority decision. Therefore:

it is… wrong in principle for any request to be made of the Board which in terms identifies an acquittal by a majority or requires it to record voting figures when the defendant is acquitted. The acquitted defendant should not be exposed to public ignominy consequent on the recording of the fact that one or more members of the Board was convinced of his guilt.

So, the decision of the court martial was upheld by the Court of Appeal, but in future “the simple question which should then be asked is, “Do you find the Defendant guilty or not guilty”. No further questions should be asked.”

A draft version of this post was accidentally published on Sunday. Apologies for this.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read More:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: