Rights, left, rights...

The Armed Forces Discipline Act means that human rights legislation will now apply even on the parade ground.

Rowland Byass explores the unique world of military law

Military law has been a distinctive feature of the British legal system since at least 1189, when special laws were enacted to govern crusading forces going to the Holy Land.

Modern military law derives from the 1688 Bill of Rights, which placed the armed forces firmly under the control of parliament as a security measure against the possibility of tyrannous monarchs.

The forces' technology, organisation and roles have moved on from their medieval and 17th Century ancestors, but military law remains a peculiar area.

Its personnel are subject to the same laws as civilians, and the courts-martial partly mirror the functions of crown courts.

But there are also several additional laws governing the military which have no parallel in civilian life.

These cover such offences such as disobedience to orders, going AWOL, or even bringing the forces into disrepute.

Therefore, lawyers who act for serving personnel need to have an understanding of military legislation, as well as the peculiarities of how 'ordinary' areas of law apply to their clients.

Many have themselves served in the forces, such as former naval officer Nick Sanders of Exeter firm Rundle Walker.

He often represents members of the Royal Marines based nearby.

'Military lawyers need an understanding of what makes a soldier tick, as well as knowing all the terminology and acronyms used in the forces', he says.

'You get lost very quickly if you don't understand.'

Nick Bell, a partner at Winchester firm Shentons, handles many matrimonial and criminal cases involving soldiers based at one of the three barracks situated near the town.

He cites pension and child access arrangements as particularly important considerations.

The demands of service life, which often require servicemen to be away from their families for long periods, inevitably put strains on marriages.

'Essentially, you need to be very aware of the reality of such issues on the ground, and how they affect your clients' lives,' he comments.

'Solicitors in this area have to know their way around the system, and they need to have a particular sensitivity to the consequences of their cases.'

'It's work I enjoy doing,' says William Bache, a criminal lawyer and partner at nearby Salisbury firm Pye-Smiths.

He handles many army courts-martial cases involving soldiers stationed around Salisbury plain.

'My clients are often in a situation where their whole career is at stake, even in what are small matters by civilian standards.

It's important to get a good result; when you succeed you achieve a lot for them.'

Last year Mr Bache flew to Bosnia, where he successfully defended a soldier on disciplinary charges at one of the few courts-martial to be conducted in an operational battlefield theatre since 1945.

Aside from the exotic travel opportunities that his work presents, there are other benefits to dealing with military clients: 'It's a disciplined organisation: clients come on time.

Once when I was handling a court-martial in Germany, we realised we needed a witness who was at an RAF base in Lincolnshire.

He was there at 6pm the same day.'

But his praise for the military legal system is not unstinted.

The Legal Services Commission no longer provides legal aid payments for solicitors attending overseas interviews.

'Funding for attendance at interviews overseas is an issue which urgently needs addressing,' he says.

' It is grossly unfair, when funding for attendance at police interviews in England and Wales is available, and could result in a breach of the Human Rights Act.'

Another problem area, according to many lawyers, is 'redress of grievances' - the handling of employment complaints.

Complaints can take up to two and a half years to be dealt with and, according to some military lawyers, that length of delay can result in many good soldiers getting frustrated and leaving the forces.

With retention of personnel a significant problem for the army, the handling of employment matters is a crucial issue.

Mike Davies is a qualified barrister who spent nine years in the army.

He now works as a paralegal at Shrewsbury firm Wace Morgan, doing first-hand assessments of disciplinary and discrimination cases.

He describes the army's complaints system as a 'bureaucratic minefield'.

The Armed Forces Act 1997 introduced the right of service personnel to take their complaints to employment tribunals.

But according to Mr Davies, many are struck out by the six-month limitation period.

The forces have to investigate complaints before they go to a tribunal, but this is often not completed until it is too late.

'There may have been instances when the forces have dragged their heels,' a Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesman admits.

However, he is dismissive of the role of complaints handling in personnel retention.

'Of the reasons why soldiers leave the army, grievance redress is in the bottom one per cent.'

Geoffrey Salvetti is chairman of Forces Law, a countrywide network of 15 firms which runs a helpline and referral service for forces personnel.

'The forces are trying to be more open in dealing with complaints', he says.

We are seeing an interesting sea-change at the moment: military lawyers are saying you have to deal with matters quickly.'

The new Armed Forces Discipline Act, which came into force at the beginning of October, goes some way to addressing these concerns .

It introduces a custody review process for soldiers held in custody, and a right of appeal for lower level offences which was previously not available.

'The forces are going to a lot of lengths to comply with the spirit, as well as the letter of the law,' maintains Nick Sanders.

However, it remains to be seen how effective these new rights are in practice.

'It will really depend on how the army publicises things to soldiers,' says Mike Davies.

Increasingly conscious of the forces' public image, the MoD has created a military information area on its website, giving the full text of the Act along with army custody and courts-martial rules, and the text of the 'Rights of a Soldier' booklet issued to personnel.

The military legal system is known for its severity, often necessary to maintain operational effectiveness in an organisation where discipline is vital.

But a turning point has been reached.

Like any other employer, in order to attract - and retain - the best people, the forces now have to tread a line between that discipline and the rights of their members.