Martin, R, v

A court martial must take relevant sentencing guidelines into account, but may depart from them where features of service life or the service disciplinary system justify doing so under section 259 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Violence by a senior serviceman against a subordinate, particularly when alcohol-related, may justify a deterrent sentence because it undermines discipline, cohesion and operational effectiveness.

A reduction in rank should not be assessed solely by its financial consequences. The central question is whether the offender’s conduct demonstrates that he is unfit to retain the existing rank. The Court Martial Appeal Court performs the same review function as the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), while giving particular deference to a court martial’s assessment of service discipline.

The appellant, a serving Sergeant, pleaded guilty at the Court Martial Centre at Bulford to two common assaults on a subordinate. He had slapped and later punched the subordinate after both had been drinking. A sentencing board reduced him in rank from Sergeant to Bombardier.

With leave, he appealed against sentence. He relied on his guilty plea, strong service record, delay, sentencing guidance and the alleged pension consequences of his subsequent medical discharge. The court obtained further evidence about those consequences and considered whether the Court Martial Appeal Court’s review role or approach to post-sentence evidence differed from that of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

1. Appeal dismissed. The reduction in rank was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. The Court Martial Appeal Court has materially the same statutory appellate and fresh-evidence powers as the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). It therefore performs the same review function. However, it gives particular deference to a court martial’s assessment of disciplinary matters and the risk to operational effectiveness, because a sentencing board has particular service expertise.
3. Under section 259 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, a court martial must take relevant sentencing guidelines into account but may depart where relevant service features justify it. The court accepted that unlawful violence by a superior against a junior colleague, especially where alcohol is involved, can corrode discipline, unit cohesion and operational effectiveness. Those service considerations can justify a heavier sentence than civilian guidance would otherwise indicate.
4. Section 248 requires the offence to be serious enough to warrant reduction in rank. The relevant inquiry is not simply the financial impact of the penalty. It is whether the offender has shown himself unfit to retain his present rank. The sentencing board was entitled to find that two alcohol-related assaults by a senior non-commissioned officer on a subordinate of much lower rank met that standard.
5. The appellant’s medical discharge produced no unforeseen substantial detriment requiring appellate intervention. The board had considered the guilty plea, mitigation, service record, delay and absence of more serious aggravating features. The court distinguished Robinson [2014] EWCA Crim 1601, where the victim was a taxi driver and the relevant service considerations were different.

• Court Martial Appeal Court: dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence.
• Court Martial Centre at Bulford: following guilty pleas to two common assaults, imposed reduction in rank from Sergeant to Bombardier.