SAME IN ESSENTIALS

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 21, 20 October 1943, Page 6

SAME IN ESSENTIALS

New Zealand And U.S. Courts-Martial

ABSENCE OF FORMALITY

- There is nothing spectacular or unusual (about a United States court-martial. In (fact but for the absence of the formality .which attends a New Zealand Army ■court-martial —and this is based on tlie /standards which obtain throughout the (British Empire—the procedure in the (military courts of the American nation 'and the British Empire are identical. I This is particularly so in the pains taken ?to see that the accused person has an /unmistakable understanding of the icharges, and particulars thereof (the Am--1 ericans call these the specification 1 made | against them and also, if a plea of guilty ? entered, the effect of this plea. A ref presentative of “The Dominion, with (considerable experience of New Zealand (Army courts-martial, was able to make j these comparisons after attending a courtmartial conducted at the camp of a Marl ine Corps’ regiment. . Instead of the command march in the ‘ accused” and the ensuing presentation of i.the accused to the court by guards with ■ parade ground precision. ■ the United r States service accused is seated alongside this counsel awaiting the arrival of the I court and so remains till called upon to Iplead. The Judge Advocate General in (this case, contrary to New Zealand praci'tice, was not a lawyer but a former jourinalist, and later (before the war) public (relations officer in a United States Gov- ' ernment department. Still he had a good ' grasp of his job, and the expeditious con- ■ duct of the proceedings did not. suiter through lack of legal degrees behind his name. Similarly the defending counsel was a former engineer.. . The court is sworn in, and the judge advocate, according to the New Zealand practice; Similarly the accused is asked if he objects to any of the personnel. Then the official court reporter is also ■sworn “to make a full and true report.’ It being ascertained that the accused has no objection to the charge and its speci- • iications as framed, the court then ad- ■ journs to consider whether the charge is properly framed. The finding in this case ■was that “it was in due form and technically correct.” The accused is then asked if he is ready for trial. Answering that he was (in this case), his counsel is then asked if there are any special pleas to make. He made none. The charge was then put and the accused pleaded guilty. In this ;case the charge was assault with intent to commit robbery. “How do you say. to the specification of the charge? (which sets out the particulars) in the next.question. To this the accused answered guilty. Having pleaded guilty the accused is not forthwith tied to his plea. He,is first warned by the president of the court that by so pleading he will deprive himself of the benefits of a “regular defence.” but may introduce evidence of mitigating circumstances and previous good character. He is then asked: “Knowing all this, do you still persist in your plea of guilty!’ This particular accused answered yes. The statement of the accused in mitigation and of reference to character is then brought forward. He is asked if it was made with his authority and on an affirmative answer it is read to. the court. The Court then considers, its finding in camera and the public side of the hearing is finished. In due course such finding is conveyed to the officer convening the court, usually the senior officer of the branch of the service in the particular area. When he has considered it and, if he thinks fit, made a reduction in any penalty imposed, it is then released for promulgation to the accused. ’ , „ , Summed up, the procedure of United States courts-martial is in, its essential points, identical with that of the Nev/ Zealand military courts. The lack of strict formality appears to have the benefit of speeding up the business.. The accused person is treated in a friendly and considerate way, but such findings as .have already been announced, from United States courts-martial in New Zealand indicate that sentences are. much more severe than awarded by military courts here for similar types of offences. The particular trial on which these observations were based, being one in which the accused pleaded guilty, was not ideal for making comparisons between New Zealand and United States procedure, but inquiries indicate that in eases where pleas of not guilty are entered, the proceedings are conducted on similar lines to those in New Zealand and elsewhere in the British Empire. In fact, drawing upon British authorities, for military law procedure and practice is acknowledged.