Readers of the article 'Challenge to UK courts martial' (see [1995] Gazette, 18 January, 6) may well have gained the impression that our court-martial system is a relic of the past and desperately in need of revision.

The report suggested that the system had hardly changed since the First World War and Gilbert Blades is reported as having said in respect of courts martial that we are 'living in the dark ages'.

This does seem a very extreme view.

The origins of courts martial can be traced back at least as far as the 'Statutes, ordinances and customs' of King Richard II, issued by him to his army in 1385, but that does not mean to say that things have stood still since then.The current legislation governing courts martial for all three services dates from the mid-1950s.

Since then, the individual Service Discipline Acts (Army Act 1955, Air Force Act 1955 and Naval Discipline Act 1957) have been the subject of regular scrutiny by Parliament and continue in force only by the enactment of a new Armed Forces Act every five years.

This statutory quinquennial review ensures that service law is constantly up-dated and must be one of the most frequently re-visited areas of legislation presently on the statute book.Rights of appeal are to be found in relatively modern legislation.

Created in 1951, the courts-martial appeal court closely resembles the criminal division of the Court of Appeal and normally consists of three judges drawn from the Court of Appeal and the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.

It is the usual practice for the court to include at least one lord justice of appeal and sometimes even the Lord Chief Justice.

A right of further appeal to the House of Lords came in 1960, and the present law relating to appeals was consolidated in the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968.The whole body of English criminal law and all the English rules of evidence are incorporated in the military legal system.

Judge advocates, who are frequently appointed to sit at courts martial, are always civilians.

They are not appointed to the trial by the prosecutor, as Mr Blades is reported as saying; they are assigned by the judge advocate general in whose office they work and to whom they are responsible.

Judge advocates are full-time qualified lawyers who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor.The judge advocate general, who is independently appointed by the sovereign, advises reviewing officers and the Army board in its review of courts-martial proceedings, an additional safeguard that does not apply in the civil criminal courts.

Furthermore, most accused soldiers are these days defended by a civilian solicitor or barrister of their own choosing and are entitled to legal aid under a scheme run on similar lines to the civil legal aid system.

Almost all prosecution cases are advised upon by professionally qualified military lawyers who also prosecute in the majority of cases.The president and members form the 'jury' at a court martial.

The constitution is usually three or five officers depending on whether it is a district or a general court martial, the main difference between them being their powers of punishment: a district court martial may not award more than imprisonment for two years.

Strict rules govern the selection of the officers to ensure their impartiality and at the start of every trial the accused is given the opportunity to object to being tried by any one or more of the officers forming the court.

The hearing is open to the public and cases of public interest are regularly reported in the local and national press.Both at home and overseas courts martial make a major contribution towards the maintenance of morale and high standards of discipline in the Army.

Because soldiers may be called upon to live and work anywhere in the world, military jurisdiction is made personal rather than territorial, thus ensuring consistency regardless of location.Overseas, one advantage of trial by court martial is that the soldier is dealt with under English law by his fellow countrymen, in a language that he understands.

If convicted, any custodial sentence is served in the UK.If fundamental unfairness existed, one would have expected some adverse judicial comment over the years, but this has not been evident.

Quite the contrary, in a case in 1988 before the courts-martial appeal court, Mr Justice Popplewell described the trial in question as 'enormously fair, characteristic of the way courts martial are conducted'.