Courts martial view 'biassed'

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 241, 3 May 1988, Page 4

Courts martial view

'biassed'

The following letter was sent to the Director of Current Affairs, Television New Zealand, Mr M. Valentine, criticising the programme 'Frontline' of April 24. I watched with interest the Frontline TV Programme on the Army Courts Martial system, broadcast on April 24 1988. I was disappointed that it did not portray a more balanced viewpoint and allow viewers the opportunity to make up their own minds on the efficacy of the Court Martial system. A number of points were conveniently left out of the programme or given undue emphasis and therefore gave a distorted viewpoint to viewers. The impression one gained was that ama-

teurs decided all aspects of the military justice system, when in fact the legal profession plays a very important role throughout. During the Barnes case matters at all levels were referred for legal advice. The legal advice was given and decisions were then made. During a Court Martial the role of the Judge Advocate, a qualified and experienced senior lawyer, is paramount and his advice to members of the Board is very important. His advice to the Board and particularly his final address before the board deliberates on a finding, are no different from the advice a High Court Judge gives to a jury before it considers a verdict. The importance attached to the Judge Advocate summation to the Board was highlighted by the decision

of the Court Martial Appeal Court and was left out of the programme. Mr Kevin Ryan won his appeal in the first Court Martial of Barnes because the Judge Advocate had failed on one point of law to clearly direct the Board prior to consideration of the finding. On that basis the Courts Martial Appeals Court quashed the finding and ordered a retrial. The Court Martial system nor the competency of its officers was in question. The decision questioned a failure in the legal advice given. The programme suggested to viewers that an accused whose case was heard before a Court Martial got a less than fair trial than he would in an equivalent civilian court. The implication that officers on a board would be intimidated by the se- ~ nior officer to conform in reaching a decision, I find insulting. The programme suggested that the officers on a Board are incapable of independent thought and do not take Court Martial duty seriously, indeed it is quite the opposite and the officers recognise the serious duty they have, to reach a fair verdict taking into account the evidence and the advice they were given by the Judge Advocate prior to their deliberations. In conclusion I found the Frontline programme was unduly biased. It failed to clearly show the role of the legal profession in providing advice at all levels of the military justice system particu-

larly during a Court Martial. The programme was invidious and has cast doubt on the military officers' ability to exercise justice and ensu^e that all soldiers tried by Court Martial are given a fair and just hearing. The programme has cast doubt on the military reputation of three officers serving in the regular army with the name Major Parsons, which one were you referring to? The programme did little to allow the public of New Zealand to fairly judge the efficacy

of the Military Court Martial system.

C.P.

Sinclair

T.ieutenant Cnlnnpl