UK court-martial for sharing Oct. 7, ISIS execution videos

HHJ Alan Large
Judge Advocate General

The Times of London reports here on an unusual prosecution in the Court Martial. Excerpt:

Two British Army soldiers have been court-martialled for sharing graphic helmet-cam videos filmed by Hamas during the October 7 attacks.

Signallers Zakariya Munir and Mohammed Salah sent video showing desecrated bodies the day after the atrocities took place in Israel in 2023.

The servicemen, from the 10th Signal Regiment, claimed “you won’t see this in the media” as they shared clips of corpses being kicked and montages of “dead civilians lying in pools of blood”.

The pair, who have now been dismissed from the army, also shared an “exceptionally violent piece of footage” of an Islamic State execution.

HHJ Alan Large, the Judge Advocate General, sentenced both men to be dismissed.

South Sudan court-martial concludes

The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) has issued the following news release and notes to editors:

A General Court Martial, supported by the South Sudan People’s Defense Forces, concluded in Wau, Western Bahr el Ghazal, on 5 July. It was preceded by two investigation missions to Wau and Jur River counties where 34 pending cases were reviewed.

Subsequently, the military court adjudicated 20 criminal cases, convicting nine members of the SSPDF, stripping them of their ranks and dismissing them from military service.

Notably, the General Court Martial delivered verdicts on two cases related to sexual and gender-based violence, resulting in convictions of seven and 10 years, respectively. Additionally, a conflict related sexual violence case involving multiple assailants and an underage victim was adjudicated, a first of its kind for such military court martials in South Sudan.

The highest-ranking member of the SSPDF convicted was a Lieutenant Colonel, for the loss of a weapon. Two civilians in detention were released from military custody since they do not fall within the jurisdiction of a military court, while another civilian on trial for killing two SSPDF soldiers was sentenced to two years imprisonment and ordered to pay 62 heads of cattle or a monetary equivalent as blood compensation to the victims’ families.

The Court also heard six cases involving conflict related crimes committed during clashes in February 2025 in Kwajiena village, Jur River county. A lack of identification of assailants by victims, despite strong testimonies, did not lead to prosecutorial action in this regard. However, the hearing resulted in a directive to the state government to award financial compensation to all victims in accordance with South Sudan’s civil procedure code.

The General Court Martial team included two female judge-advocates to ensure that both female and male victims and witnesses were supported during the process. All victims also had access to two civilian victims’ counsel, who provided free legal advice and actively participated in the proceedings to protect victim rights and help them navigate the justice process.

This military court was followed by a civil-military dialogue in Wau with a focus on joint efforts to combat sexual violence. The aim was to strengthen trust between uniformed personnel and communities, as well as obtain real time feedback on the impact of such military justice interventions on host populations.

The Wau General Court Martial was funded by the generous support of the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Juba. In particular, it builds on the work of similar military proceedings that took place in Wau in 2022, which resulted in convictions of eight members of the SSPDF for murder. The convicted soldiers were stripped of their ranks and dismissed from the SSPDF.

As part of its ongoing efforts to strengthen justice mechanisms and rule of law processes, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) also provided funding for victims and witnesses to receive psychosocial support before, during, and after trial.

Note to Editors:

The SSPDF’s Military Justice Directorate (MJD) deploys General Courts Martials to promote accountability for crimes committed by members of the SSPDF, instill discipline among its ranks and strengthen its relationship with civilian populations.

During the closing of the Wau General Court Martial, the SSPDF Military Justice Directorate distributed to all military personnel at the Fifth Infantry Division, ‘Six Key Messages to End Sexual Violence’ that are binding standing orders developed by the Directorate.

The Wau General Court Martial is part of continued partnerships between UNMISS and the Military Justice Directorate to strengthen accountability within the SSPDF. Since 2020, the Military Justice Directorate, with support from UNMISS, has deployed 14 such courts to nine locations across South Sudan, and addressed a total of 136 criminal cases involving uniformed personnel, including murder, assault, and sexual and gender-based violence.

Greedy Tommy and all that -- book review by Dwight Sullivan

Adm. Sir John Duckworth, RN

The Royal Navy’s Admiral John Byng was famously court-martialed and executed in 1757 for the offense of failing to "do his utmost" during the 1756 Battle of Minorca. That inspired Voltaire’s quip that the British “kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.”

Byng’s court-martial was too early to be included in John Morrow’s about-to-be-released book (July 10, 2025, publication date), Admirals in Court: Discipline, Honour and Naval Justice, 1778-1814. Excerpts available on Google Books nevertheless suggest that the work is a spirited, insightful look into the British naval justice system from the time of the American Revolution through the War of 1812.

Morrow is a professor emeritus of politics and international relations at the University of Auckland. His latest book offers a deep dive into the nine courts-martial of Royal Navy flag officers from 1778 to 1814. As he explains in the preface, “Courts martial were used by the Admiralty Board and less directly by governments to uphold discipline and punish wrong-doing (which includes failures in key duties) and maintain the aggressive and dynamic culture of the Royal Navy.” He later refers to “the first rule” of a British officer: “fight the French whenever he can.”

The book’s opening chapter, about court-martial procedures in Britain’s “Senior Service,” will particularly interest military lawyers. Unsurprisingly, the admirals’ courts-martial were, in some respects, atypical of the era’s British naval justice system. Morrow observes that during the period he studied, “[f]lag officers invariably had assistance from legal counsel when writing their defence statements and they usually read them to the court on the accused’s behalf. However, legal counsel played no other formal role in court martial proceedings.” The flag officers’ “courts martial were usually longer than most other naval trials and were also more elaborate, at times involving extensive lists of witnesses.” Morrow also notes that the “defence statements of men from the lower deck were often brief, confined mainly to acknowledging guilt and seeking, by reference to previous good service, to mitigate the severity of the penalty. That was not the case for flag officers.” Most of the accused admirals “took full advantage of the opportunity to provide detailed rebuttals of charges and the evidence of prosecution witnesses.”

The excerpts from Morrow’s case studies available on Google Books offer engaging descriptions of the admirals’ alleged offenses and resulting trials. For example, his chapter about the 1805 court-martial of Vice Admiral Sir John [Thomas] Duckworth is titled “Vice Admiral Duckworth’s Excess Baggage.” It refers to enlisted sailors’ nickname for Duckworth: “greedy Tommy.” Other chapters include bracing accounts of naval battles lost and won—or avoided—and the resulting consequences at courts-martial.

The table of contents suggests that the principal text is roughly 200 pages plus notes, bibliography, and index. But my perusal of the full book will be delayed by its price. Bloomsbury Academic—the volume’s publisher—charges the princely sums of $103.50 for the hardback edition and $82.80 for a PDF. Amazon charges even more for the hardback and $103.50 for a Kindle edition. Worldcat lists it at just seven U.S. libraries—Montclair State University’s library being the closest to Washington, D.C. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that it will arrive at a closer library once we reach its formal publication date.

None of the trials featured in the book ended in a Byngesque firing squad. Still, the Royal Navy court-martialed nine admirals over thirty-six years with the apparent goal of encouraging the others.

_____

Dwight Sullivan is a senior counsel at the Air Force Appellate Defense Division and a professorial lecturer in law at the George Washington University Law School. The views expressed in this guest post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.

[Editor's Note -- thanks and BZ to Mr. Sullivan, prolific author and varacious assimilator of esoterica.]

Russian military commanders authorized to detain soldiers without judicial approval

The Moscow Times reports in a recent article that Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree granting military commanders in operational zones the power to detain soldiers for infractions without a court decision. The decree amends the Armed Forces' Disciplinary Code, allowing unit commanders to sentence soldiers to up to 10 days of detention in temporary custodial facilities near the front lines, known as guardhouses. Previously, only military courts had this authority.

The new rules enable commanders, after conducting an internal investigation, to either take disciplinary action against soldiers or refer the matter to a military court. The Defense Ministry justified these changes by citing the distance between military courts and the front lines. It would disrupt military operations and waste resources, the ministry claimed.

Notably, guardhouses were reinstated in 2007 for serious misconduct cases, and since the Ukraine invasion, the Defense Ministry has revived field guardhouses in practice, creating secret detention sites for offenders. Offenses that can lead to detention include using smartphones and other devices while off-duty. Russia banned personal smartphones on the battlefield, except for combat use, after soldiers used them to expose abuses and documents incidents.

According to the article, the decree raises concerns about compliance with international human rights standards, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights, which Russia ratified in 1998. The changes may be seen as a further erosion of due process and judicial oversight in the Russian military. The article in The Moscow Times does not specify the conditions under which the detention is to be served, nor whether the individual soldier can seek review of the commander's decision to a higher authority.

In comparison, US military commanders can impose non-judicial punishment (NJP) for minor offenses, and this can include correctional custody for service members of junior non-officer ranks. Correctional custody is a form of punishment which restricts the individual's freedom of movement, often within a specific area, and can involve additional duties or restrictions. In combat zones, this form of detention is usually served within the unit's area of operations. This could be a designated area within the base camp or a similar secure location that allows for the enforcement of the restriction while minimizing disruption to the unit's mission. Depending on the rank of the military commander, the period of correctional custody could be up to 7 or to 30 days. It must be added that US service members generally have the right to refuse NJP and request a court-martial, save some exceptions, notably if the individual is embarked on a ship.

Returning to Russian military law, ironically, the increase in power given to military commanders is a response to the prohibition on using personal phones to report violations and abuses. Notably, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) imposes a duty on every soldier to report IHL violations, particularly under the principle of command responsibility.

Colonel Drapeau awarded "Order of Canada"

 

On June 30, 2025. Her Excellency, the Right Honorable Mary Simon, Governor General of Canada, announced my appointment to the Order of Canada.

CITATION

“Colonel-Maître Michel Drapeau is a leader in military and veteran law. He founded the first Canadian practice specializing in military administrative law, playing an instrumental role in its recognition as an official legal discipline. As a prominent scholar and practitioner, he continues to shape the landscape of Canada law.”

I am profoundly thankful for this award and I am honored and grateful at being recognized in this way by my country. Receiving this award is one of the most important highlights of my career.

Happy Fourth

Military Justice in Ukraine: Renaissance During Wartime

This article, from 2022, was written by Oksana Kaplina, Serhii Kravtsov, and Olena Leyba, for Access to Justice in Eastern Europe. (Hat-tip to Arne Willy Dahl for the link.) The abstract explains:

In the article, the authors raise issues that are relevant for the modern legal system of Ukraine, related to the need to revive the military justice system and, in particular, military courts. The authors emphasize that during the peaceful existence of Ukraine, a dangerous illusion was formed in the society regarding the unnecessary functioning of military justice in the state, however, unforeseen realities fundamentally changed the liberal ideas of peacetime. After the beginning of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the work of many courts was completely paralyzed, the judges did not have an algorithm of actions in war conditions, they urgently left for safe cities, including outside the territory of Ukraine, leaving proceedings, documentation, unfinished cases. The study allowed the authors to come to the conclusion that in a situation of continuing armed aggression, the presence of powerful Armed Forces in the state, and when the country is forced to fight for its independence, it is the military courts that are able to ensure legality and exercise justice and judicial control in accordance with their subject jurisdiction. In order to determine the optimal model of military justice, the authors examined the genesis of approaches that existed in society and characterized its attitude to the system of military justice. They analyzed the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in the context of alleged violations of Art. 6 of the Criminal Code during the administration of justice by military courts, as well as systematized key approaches developed by the Court, which are proposed to be taken into account when restoring the system of military courts in Ukraine. In addition, the authors systematized the existing models of military justice in the world, identified correlations that, apparently, led to the rejection of military justice by some countries, provided detailed arguments about the need to restore it in Ukraine, and indicated promising directions for further scientific research in this area.