PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 40426/98) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a United Kingdom national, Mr Alan Martin (“the applicant”), on 10 March 1998.

The applicant was represented by Mr G. Blades, a solicitor practising in Lincoln. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr C. Whomersley and subsequently Mr J. Grainger, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 about his trial by court-martial.

The application was submitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of the Court). Within the Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

On 29 February 2000, a Chamber of the Section decided to communicate the case to the Government and the parties each filed observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaints.

By letters to the parties of 12 April 2002, the Section Registrar requested the parties to submit additional comments in light of the Court’s judgment in Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 38784/97, ECHR 2002‑I.

On 17 December 2002, the Chamber elected to re-communicate the application to the Government under Rule 54 § 2 (b) Rules of Court and adjourned the case pending the judgment of the Grand Chamber in Grieves v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 57067/00, ECHR 2003‑XII. The Chamber also decided that under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 54A, it would examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was born in 1976 and, at the time of the introduction of his application, was serving a sentence of life imprisonment in England.

In February 1994 the applicant was living with his family in Germany, where his father was an Army Corporal serving in the Support Unit of the Rhine Garrison. On 8 February 1994 the applicant was charged with the murder of a young civilian woman who had been working in the Support Unit and whose body had been found in woods near to the army base.

As a family member residing with a member of the Armed Forces, the applicant was subject to military law (see paragraph 25 below). The German authorities waived jurisdiction pursuant to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951 (see paragraph 21 below).

On 8 February 1994 the Commander of the Support Unit was appointed to act as the applicant’s Commanding Officer. The latter decided to refer the case to the Higher Authority with a view to the applicant being tried by general court-martial. The Higher Authority submitted the case for trial by general court-martial, and the court-martial was convened by the Commanding Officer (henceforth, “the Convening Officer”). The applicant obtained military legal aid on 10 February 1994.

In the meantime, the applicant’s father was posted to England and returned there on 24 March 1994. Despite his father’s return, the applicant remained subject to military law as the proceedings had already commenced (see paragraph 26 below). The applicant returned to England in April 1994 where he was detained. His father was discharged from the army in November 1994.

The applicant was returned to Germany in time for his court-martial which commenced on 21 April 1995. The court-martial board was composed of a President, who was not a permanent president, and six ordinary members. Four of the members were senior officers, all of whom were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer and the President and one of whom was within the Convening Officer’s chain of command. Two members were civilian civil servants, who came from the United Kingdom solely for the purpose of the trial, and were placed under the Convening Officer’s command while in Germany, although they were not in his reporting chain.

The applicant’s representative submitted, inter alia, that the trial of a young civilian by court-martial was inherently unfair and oppressive and thus an abuse of process. The atmosphere in a military court would be very different from that of a civilian court and the applicant would not do himself justice. In particular, it was unfair and oppressive that he should be returned to stand trial in Germany after he had spent many months in detention in England and after his father had ceased to be subject to military law. Lastly, if tried by jury, a majority of 10 to 2 votes would be necessary to convict him, whereas a simple majority vote would suffice in a trial by court-martial.

These submissions were considered by the Vice-Judge Advocate General and were rejected, as was an application for an adjournment to allow proceedings for judicial review to commence. The trial ended with the applicant’s conviction on 3 May 1995. In accordance with the provisions of the Army Act 1995, the verdict of the court-martial was confirmed by a Confirming Officer (see paragraph 28 below).

The applicant appealed to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which had the power to quash the conviction if it considered it unsafe. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, giving judgment on 30 July 1996, held, dismissing the appeal: “... We have some considerable sympathy with the appellant’s complaint. With the benefit of hindsight, it seems plain that the trial could have been conducted in England without undue difficulty. It would in our view have been preferable if this young appellant, whose subjection to military law was purely vicarious and involuntary, had been tried here with all the procedural safeguards which procedure in the ordinary criminal courts affords. We cannot, however, stigmatise these proceedings as abusive. They were strictly in accordance with a procedure prescribed by Parliament to apply in such cases. There was not, as is accepted, any attempt to over reach or oppress or prejudice the appellant. He had all the safeguards which a defendant in any court-martial is entitled to enjoy. Steps were taken to ensure that all members of the tribunal save one were not under the command of the convening officer, and also to ensure that the convening officer and the confirming officer were not the same person. Had the appellant been held in Germany to await trial, as he could have been, his claim to trial in England would have appeared weaker. Whether or not it proved necessary in the event to adduce the oral evidence of German factual witnesses, the greater availability of such witnesses as a trial in Germany was a legitimate reason for favouring trial there. We are satisfied that these proceedings were not an abuse of process.”

The appeal court certified a question of law for the House of Lords as to whether proceedings conducted in accordance with the 1955 Act could be considered abusive. On 9 July 1997 the House of Lords granted leave to appeal. Having heard the applicant’s legal representatives, on 16 December 1997 the House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lords Slynn of Hadley and Hope of Craighead expressed the view that at first sight the decision to prosecute the applicant—a civilian aged only 17 at the time of the murder—by court-martial had been inappropriate. However, as Lord Hope explained: “It is not difficult to understand the utility of [section 209 of the Army Act 1955: see paragraph 24 below], in view of the greatly increased opportunities which were by then available for families and other civilian personnel to accompany the forces when serving overseas. Had the law not been changed in this respect, civilians and followers would have had to have been brought to trial in the local civil courts in the language and according to the procedures in use in those courts and, if sentenced to imprisonment, to serve the sentence in a local prison. ... Fundamental to the appellant’s argument in the present case is the proposition that the purpose of [the extension of jurisdiction in section 9 of the 1861 Act: see paragraph 29 below] was to extend to murders committed abroad the right of every person in this country who is accused of murder to have his or her guilt declared by means of a jury trial. ... It seems to me that another, and more likely, explanation is that the legislation was enacted to ensure that the grave offences with which it deals should not go unpunished when committed abroad by a British citizen. ... In view of what I have said above I do not believe that the proceedings by way of court-martial in this case can be said in themselves to have been an abuse of process. ... The question to which I now turn is whether there is any basis in the information which is available to us for describing any of the decisions taken by those in authority at the various stages in this case as so unfair and wrong as to show that the conviction in this case was unsafe. ...”

Lord Hope went on to examine the factors which would have had to have been taken into account when considering whether to prosecute the applicant by court-martial in Germany or by jury trial in England: “The timing of any consideration of the matter by the Director of Public Prosecutions would, in my view, have been of critical importance to a decision as to whether there was any unfairness in this case which might be said to render the conviction unsafe. It cannot be assumed that the Director would have been willing to take proceedings in England without knowing more about the factors which he would have wished to take into account. One obvious factor, I would have thought, was the availability of witnesses. In his letter of 14 June 1994 to the Attorney General the Director of Army Legal Services had stated that many of the witnesses were German and that they could not be forced to attend a trial in England. Further details were provided at the request of the Attorney General in a letter by the Director of Army Legal Services dated 25 November 1994. In this letter it is stated that there were 13 German witnesses who could be divided into three categories—those who saw the appellant in the woods near the scene of the murder, those concerned with the finding of the body and police and forensic experts. The defence had not yet indicated what evidence would be agreed. The Director thought that, while some of their evidence might be agreed, it was unlikely that this would include the police and forensic experts. He believed that they were the witnesses who would be most unlikely to cause difficulties if asked to travel to England to give evidence. He added that one of the forensic scientists who was responsible for examining secretions and bloodstains—a matter which was of crucial importance in this case as there were no eyewitnesses—was being difficult to deal with and would only attend meetings if they were arranged through the German public prosecutor in the nearest large town. He explained that these witnesses were German because the police investigation was commenced by the German civil police as it was initially assumed that a German civilian had committed the crime. ... I have not forgotten that Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ [see paragraph 18 above] said in his judgment that it was clear, with the benefit of hindsight, that the trial could have been conducted in England without due difficulty. But the Director of Public Prosecutions would have had to have taken his decision well before the trial, in view of the arrangements which would have had to have been made for the appellant to be transferred into the hands of the civil authorities in England and for the attendance of the witnesses. In the event, as the respondent has recorded in his written case, no agreement was reached, despite several written requests and reminders, about any of the evidence until the commencement of the trial when the evidence of the witnesses was agreed piecemeal during the opening days. This account of what happened strongly suggests that at the stage when the Director of Public Prosecutions would have had to have taken his decision he would have had to assume that the important evidence of the German witnesses would not be agreed before the trial and that the attendance of the German witnesses would be necessary. ... Conclusion ... The proceedings were conducted within the rules laid down by Parliament. There is no sound basis for thinking that, at the time when a decision about this would have had to have been taken, a prosecution in the English courts within a reasonable time would have been seen to be practicable. The alternatives lay between taking proceedings by way of court-martial in Germany, leaving the matter in the hands of the German public prosecutor or taking no proceedings at all. ...”

II. RELEVANT NON-CONVENTION LAW AND PRACTICE

A. The NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951

The 1951 agreement, as supplemented by the Supplementary Agreement of 1959 (subsequently amended in 1971, 1981 and 1993) provides in Article VII(1): “1. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the military authorities of the sending State shall have the right to exercise within the receiving State all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the law of the sending State over all persons subject to the military law of that State; the authorities of the receiving State shall have jurisdiction over the members of a force or civilian component and their dependents with respect to offences committed within the territory of the receiving State and punishable by the law of that State.

Article VII(3)(a) provides: “3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply: (a) The military authorities of the sending State shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over a member of a force or a civilian component in relation to (i) offences solely against property or security of that State, or offences solely against the person or property of another member of the force or civilian component of that state or of a dependent; (ii) offences arising out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty.”

B. The Army Act 1955

Section 70 of the 1955 Act provides: “(1) Any person subject to military law who commits a civil offence, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, shall be guilty of an offence against this section. ... A person shall not be charged with an offence against this section committed in the United Kingdom if the corresponding civil offence is ... murder.”

Section 209(2) of the Act states: “Subject to the modifications hereinafter specified, Part II of this Act shall at all times apply to a person of any description specified in the Fifth Schedule to this Act who is within the limits of the command of any officer commanding a body of the regular forces outside the United Kingdom, and is not subject to military law ... apart from this section ... as the said Part II applies to persons subject to military law ...”

The Act identifies in its Fifth Schedule the civilians outside the United Kingdom who are subject to Part II of the Act when not on active service. They include, at paragraph 5: “Persons forming part of the family of members of any of Her Majesty’s Naval, Military, or Air Forces and residing with them or about to reside or departing after residing with them.”

The trial of those who have ceased to be subject to military law is expressly provided for by section 131 of the Act: “Subject to the provisions of the next following section, where an offence under this Act triable by Court-Martial has been committed ... by any person while subject to military law, then in relation to that offence he shall be treated, for the purposes of the provisions of the Act relating to ... trial and punishment by Court-Martial ... as continuing subject to military law and notwithstanding his ceasing at any time to be subject thereto.”

Since the Armed Forces Act 1976, where a civilian defendant is to be tried, civilian Crown servants can be detailed as members of the court-martial. In practice, most criminal offences allegedly committed by a civilian dependent would be tried by a Standing Civilian Court (similar to a Magistrates’ Court), with trial by court-martial reserved for the most serious offences.

The law and procedures which applied generally to the applicant’s court-martial were contained in the Army Act 1955, the Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972 and the Queen’s Regulations 1975 (for which, see Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, §§ 32-51). From 1 April 1997 (after the conclusion of the applicant’s court-martial) the Armed Forces Act 1996 came into force which modified certain provisions of the Army Act 1955 (see, generally, Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, § 104, ECHR 3003-XII; Grieves v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 57067/00, § 69, ECHR 2003-XII).

C. The Offences against the Person Act 1861

The basic rule of the common law is that the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in the United Kingdom is confined to crimes committed within the territory of each court. An exception is provided by section 9 of the 1861 Act, which gives jurisdiction to British courts in respect of alleged murders and manslaughters committed by British citizens anywhere in the world.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e1
001-77661_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
40426/98
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em3
ORG
NO_MASK
001-77661_a11_em2
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e3
001-77661_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Alan Martin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e4
001-77661_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
10 March 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e5
001-77661_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr G. Blades
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-77661_a11_e6
001-77661_a11_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Lincoln
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
001-77661_a11_em2
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
001-77661_a11_em2
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e7
001-77661_a11_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Whomersley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e8
001-77661_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Grainger
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e9
001-77661_a11_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e11
001-77661_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e12
001-77661_a11_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
29 February 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e13
001-77661_a11_em16
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of the Section
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e14
001-77661_a11_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
12 April 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e15
001-77661_a11_em19
ORG
NO_MASK
Section Registrar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e16
001-77661_a11_em20
MISC
NO_MASK
Morris v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em21
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e17
001-77661_a11_em22
CODE
NO_MASK
38784/97
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e18
001-77661_a11_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
17 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e19
001-77661_a11_em25
MISC
NO_MASK
Grieves v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e20
001-77661_a11_em27
CODE
NO_MASK
57067/00
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e21
001-77661_a11_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
1976
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em29
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e23
001-77661_a11_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e24
001-77661_a11_em31
LOC
NO_MASK
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e25
001-77661_a11_em32
DEM
QUASI
Army Corporal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e26
001-77661_a11_em33
ORG
QUASI
Support Unit of the Rhine Garrison
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e27
001-77661_a11_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
8 February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e26
001-77661_a11_em35
ORG
QUASI
001-77661_a11_em33
Support Unit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e28
001-77661_a11_em36
ORG
NO_MASK
Armed Forces
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em37
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e30
001-77661_a11_em38
MISC
QUASI
NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e27
001-77661_a11_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
8 February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e26
001-77661_a11_em40
ORG
QUASI
Support Unit
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e31
001-77661_a11_em41
PERSON
NO_MASK
Commanding Officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e32
001-77661_a11_em42
ORG
NO_MASK
Higher Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e32
001-77661_a11_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
Higher Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em45
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e31
001-77661_a11_em47
PERSON
NO_MASK
Commanding Officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e31
001-77661_a11_em48
PERSON
NO_MASK
001-77661_a11_em47
Convening Officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e33
001-77661_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
10 February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em50
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e34
001-77661_a11_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
24 March 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em52
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e35
001-77661_a11_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
April 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e36
001-77661_a11_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
November 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-77661_a11_e24
001-77661_a11_em55
LOC
QUASI
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e37
001-77661_a11_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
21 April 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e31
001-77661_a11_em59
PERSON
NO_MASK
Convening Officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e31
001-77661_a11_em60
PERSON
NO_MASK
Convening Officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em61
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e31
001-77661_a11_em62
PERSON
NO_MASK
Convening Officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e24
001-77661_a11_em63
LOC
QUASI
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e24
001-77661_a11_em65
LOC
QUASI
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em66
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e38
001-77661_a11_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
3 May 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e39
001-77661_a11_em70
ORG
NO_MASK
Courts-Martial Appeal Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e40
001-77661_a11_em71
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Bingham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e41
001-77661_a11_em72
LOC
NO_MASK
Cornhill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e42
001-77661_a11_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
30 July 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em74
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e43
001-77661_a11_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e44
001-77661_a11_em77
PERSON
NO_MASK
convening officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e44
001-77661_a11_em78
PERSON
NO_MASK
convening officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e24
001-77661_a11_em79
LOC
QUASI
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em80
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em81
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e24
001-77661_a11_em82
LOC
QUASI
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e45
001-77661_a11_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e46
001-77661_a11_em84
MISC
QUASI
1955 Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e47
001-77661_a11_em85
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e45
001-77661_a11_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e48
001-77661_a11_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
16 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e45
001-77661_a11_em88
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e49
001-77661_a11_em89
PERSON
QUASI
Lords Slynn
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-77661_a11_e50
001-77661_a11_em90
LOC
NO_MASK
Hadley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e51
001-77661_a11_em91
PERSON
QUASI
Hope
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-77661_a11_e52
001-77661_a11_em92
LOC
NO_MASK
Craighead
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e53
001-77661_a11_em93
DEM
QUASI
17
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em94
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e51
001-77661_a11_em95
PERSON
QUASI
Hope
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e54
001-77661_a11_em96
MISC
QUASI
the Army Act 1955
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e55
001-77661_a11_em97
MISC
QUASI
grave offences with which it deals should not go unpunished when committed abroad
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e56
001-77661_a11_em98
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e51
001-77661_a11_em100
PERSON
QUASI
Hope
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em101
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e24
001-77661_a11_em102
LOC
QUASI
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em103
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em104
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e57
001-77661_a11_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
14 June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e58
001-77661_a11_em106
ORG
NO_MASK
Army Legal Services
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em107
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em108
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e58
001-77661_a11_em109
ORG
NO_MASK
Army Legal Services
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e59
001-77661_a11_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
25 November 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em111
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em112
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em113
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em114
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em115
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e60
001-77661_a11_em116
MISC
QUASI
assumed that a German civilian had committed the crime
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em117
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e61
001-77661_a11_em118
PERSON
QUASI
Bingham
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-77661_a11_e62
001-77661_a11_em119
LOC
NO_MASK
Cornhill CJ
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em120
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e22
001-77661_a11_em121
LOC
NO_MASK
England
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e63
001-77661_a11_em122
DATETIME
NO_MASK
opening days
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e64
001-77661_a11_em123
ORG
NO_MASK
Director of Public Prosecutions
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em124
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em125
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e43
001-77661_a11_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e65
001-77661_a11_em127
DEM
NO_MASK
English
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em128
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e24
001-77661_a11_em129
LOC
QUASI
Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e29
001-77661_a11_em130
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e30
001-77661_a11_em131
MISC
QUASI
NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e30
001-77661_a11_em132
MISC
QUASI
001-77661_a11_em131
1951 agreement
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e66
001-77661_a11_em133
MISC
NO_MASK
Supplementary Agreement
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e67
001-77661_a11_em134
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1959
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e68
001-77661_a11_em135
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1971
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e69
001-77661_a11_em136
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e70
001-77661_a11_em137
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e46
001-77661_a11_em138
MISC
QUASI
The Army Act 1955
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e46
001-77661_a11_em139
MISC
QUASI
001-77661_a11_em138
1955 Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em140
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em141
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em142
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em143
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e71
001-77661_a11_em144
ORG
NO_MASK
Her Majesty’s Naval
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e72
001-77661_a11_em145
ORG
NO_MASK
Air Forces
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e73
001-77661_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Court-Martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e73
001-77661_a11_em147
ORG
NO_MASK
Court-Martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e74
001-77661_a11_em148
MISC
NO_MASK
Armed Forces Act 1976
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e75
001-77661_a11_em149
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em150
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e76
001-77661_a11_em151
ORG
NO_MASK
Standing Civilian Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e77
001-77661_a11_em152
ORG
NO_MASK
Magistrates’ Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em153
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em154
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e54
001-77661_a11_em155
MISC
QUASI
the Army Act 1955
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e78
001-77661_a11_em156
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1972
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e79
001-77661_a11_em157
MISC
NO_MASK
Findlay v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em158
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e80
001-77661_a11_em159
DATETIME
QUASI
25 October 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e81
001-77661_a11_em160
DATETIME
QUASI
1 April 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e10
001-77661_a11_em161
ORG
NO_MASK
court-martial
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e82
001-77661_a11_em162
MISC
NO_MASK
Armed Forces Act 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e54
001-77661_a11_em163
MISC
QUASI
the Army Act 1955
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e83
001-77661_a11_em164
MISC
NO_MASK
Cooper v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em165
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e84
001-77661_a11_em166
CODE
NO_MASK
48843/99
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-77661_a11_e19
001-77661_a11_em167
MISC
NO_MASK
Grieves v. the United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em168
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e20
001-77661_a11_em169
CODE
NO_MASK
57067/00
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e2
001-77661_a11_em170
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e56
001-77661_a11_em171
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-77661_a11_e56
001-77661_a11_em172
DEM
NO_MASK
British
Alan Martin
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Alan Martin