Dreyfus film by Roman Polanski

Capt. Alfred Dreyfus

Owen Gleiberman has this Variety review of "J'Accuse (An Officer and a Spy)," Roman Polanski's new film about the Dreyfus Affair. Excerpt:

[Alfred] Dreyfus, played in the movie by Louis Garrel with the intensity of a stoic bird (in his pince-nez, he looks like a feral-geek James Joyce as played by Steven Soderbergh), is an honorable soul who gets slandered, unfairly convicted, and becomes a martyr. His time on Devil’s Island, which we see all too briefly, is a hellish exile for him, and the whole dramatic momentum of the movie is: How will his persecution end? Can this injustice be overturned? 

Why is this case in a military court?

The Cameroon Court of Appeal in Yaoundé has rejected a challenge to the jurisdiction of a military court over civilians. Details here. Former minister Maurice Kamto is charged with hostility to the fatherland.

Human rights jurisprudence strongly disfavors the trial of civilians by military courts.

Trend lines in Australia

Sally Whyte, writing in the Canberra Times, reports on trends in Australian military justice:

Transgressions by members of the Defence force are increasingly being sanctioned administratively instead of through the Defence Force Discipline Act, as survey results show members have little confidence in the system.

Administrative sanctions against members for offences like misuse of alcohol, civil offences, failing a fitness test and unsatisfactory conduct rose by 13 per cent between 2016-17 and 2017-18, while trials and convictions through the court martials [ouch], defence force magistrate trials and summary trials dropped 8 per cent.

The 2017-18 annual report of the ADF Inspector General can be found here.

Labor Day Weekend

Not Military Justice but an interesting observation by the Supreme Court of India on the scope of judicial review over War Records

The Supreme Court of India has rendered a decision stating therein that the Armed Forces Tribunal cannot go into issues that do not involve civil consequences.

The Petitioner before the Armed Forces Tribunal, a decorated Brigadier, had challenged the Annual Confidential Report (Appraisal Report) by his senior just prior to the limited Indo-Pak conflict which is also known as the Kargil War of 1999 (Operation Vijay). He had also challenged the incorrect record (as per him) being maintained in the War Reports dealing with the Kargil War which in his perception did not appreciate his battle performance properly.

The AFT had allowed the Brigadier’s plea and had quashed the said Appraisal Report and had also directed the Government to correct the “After-Action” Report.

While stating that the issue of the Appraisal Reports did involve civil consequences and hence was cognizable by the AFT, the SC in a short order on an appeal filed by the Union of India has held that the matter of correcting the war record was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The following are the observations of the Apex Court on the issue:

“...We find the issue raised is more to take credit by the Officers engaged in Operation Vijay. The reports do not have any civil consequences, therefore, are not subject to judicial review by the Tribunal or the Courts. The order having civil consequences has already been set aside and not appealed by the appellants. Therefore, maintenance of records for future strategic studies is not open to challenge in exercise of power of judicial review...The Tribunal or the Court is not the authority to appreciate the historical facts as it is for the experts and Officers in the Armed Forces to record such facts in terms of the procedure established by them. Court neither has the expertise nor has the jurisdiction to sit over the reports furnished by the Officers in respect of credit to the Officers involved in Operation Vijay...”

The complete opinion of the Supreme Court can be accessed here.