Gunn v Service Prosecuting Authority

Gunn v Service Prosecuting Authority

The Armed Forces Act 2006 does not require that a Court Martial Board be comprised solely of members from the defendant’s own Service. The Queen’s Regulations establish an ordinary but not mandatory practice. There was no breach of a mandatory rule, and the Court Martial was properly constituted.

Parties
Appellant: Neil Christopher Gunn; Respondent: Service Prosecuting Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Court Martial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Court Martial Constitution, Delegated Legislation, Jurisdiction, Armed Forces Act 2006
Military Law Criminal Law Court Martial Constitution Delegated Legislation Jurisdiction Armed Forces Act 2006

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Christopher Gunn

Appellant

Service Prosecuting Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Court Martial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Court Martial trying a member of the RAF is properly constituted if the Board comprises only Army personnel and no RAF personnel.

Ratio Decidendi

The Armed Forces Act 2006 does not require that a Court Martial Board be comprised solely of members from the defendant’s own Service. The Queen’s Regulations establish an ordinary but not mandatory practice. There was no breach of a mandatory rule, and the Court Martial was properly constituted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed