The use of serving naval officers as judge advocates in court martial proceedings is a breach of the right to a fair trial, according to a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

However, in Grieves v the United Kingdom and Cooper v the United Kingdom, the ECHR overruled a previous decision that the practice of 'post-trial review' was a violation of the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under the practice, court martial decisions may be overridden by a Service Reviewing Authority.

In Grieves, the ECHR found that the use of a serving naval officer as a judge advocate, rather than a civilian (as in Army and RAF courts martial), did not provide a strong guarantee of the independence of courts martial.

Mr Grieves was awarded costs, but not damages.

Nigel Lyons, a partner at south-west firm Foot Anstey Sargent who deals with armed forces law, said: 'The courts have ruled that these hearings do not comply with a person's right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The courts martial system was introduced to deal with the military's more serious disciplinary matters but has, for some time, been considered to be out of date.

The European Court's ruling has confirmed this, and means that in future proceedings, the judge will be a civilian and not a naval officer.'

In response to the ruling, the government has immediately ceased appointing uniformed officers as judge advocates in Royal Navy courts martial and will amend legislation so that civilian judge advocates will no longer be appointed by uniformed officers.

Rachel Rothwell