The Courts-Martial Appeal Court in London has reduced the sentence of Leading Seaman Kevin Moffat, a Royal Navy sailor with 25 years' service, who entered the stateroom of the executive officer of HMS Edinburgh carrying an assault rifle. According to this account in The News, "Moffat held up the weapon in one hand – without pointing it at anyone – and showed the bullets in the other, saying: ‘This is a loaded weapon. You know what that means. I want to talk to you’." Moffat, who was suffering from an adjustment disorder, was sentenced to three years confinement at trial. Reducing this to 14 months, the appellate court, per Lord Justice Christopher Pitchford, said the court-martial "failed to make significant allowance for the fleeting nature of Moffat’s loss of judgment" and that his previous experiences and background might have ‘overwhelmed him’. . . . We recognise the judgement was difficult. However, we are clear that, on the special facts of the case, in particular the character and personality of Moffat himself, three years was excessive."
The Courts-Martial Appeal Court is composed of civilian judges. What should be the standard for appellate review of court-martial sentences? What is it in your country?