The Court Martial is one of the military courts of the United Kingdom. The Armed Forces Act 2006 establishes the Court Martial as a permanent permanent tribunal. Previously, courts martial were convened on an ad hoc basis with several traditions, including the use of swords. The court martial may condemn any violation of the Service Act.  The tribunal is composed of a judge advocate and three to seven (depending on the seriousness of the offence) officers and warrant officers.  Decisions on points of law are made solely by the Judge Advocate, while decisions on the facts of the case are made by a majority of the members of the Court, without the Judge Advocate, and decisions on sentencing are made by the majority of the Court, this time including the Judge Advocate.  Military personnel of the New Zealand Armed Forces are court-martialed for breaching the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. Offences such as mutiny, murder, sexual offences, aggravated assault, drug offences or offences for which the maximum penalty exceeds 7 years imprisonment are brought before a court martial. Below this threshold of 7 years, the accused is treated by his commanding officer in a so-called summary trial. For most of its two hundred years of history, court martial has been the ogre of American law. Modeled on sixteenth-century European ideas on discipline and punishment, courts martial operated smoothly.
Commanders led them, defendants had few rights, and punishments were arbitrary: disobedient soldiers were fined, imprisoned, or released, and deserters were whipped or hanged. Constitutional law has rarely stood in the way. Between 1775 and 1950, the U.S. Army hardly changed its methods. It wasn`t until the Vietnam War that reform fell into the hands of federal legislators and judges. Today, the military court looks like an average federal court. Just as trials in civilian criminal courts are the result of the work of police and prosecutors, courts martial are preceded by a formal inquiry. During interrogations, military suspects have the same right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment, as do civilians, as well as certain additional rights. Civilian police must read Miranda`s rights to a suspect at the time of arrest. Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires military investigators to go further: as soon as suspicion is focused on a suspect during interrogation, they must inform him of his right to remain silent. This strict requirement places a heavier burden on military investigators to protect the rights of suspects and may later become grounds for dropping charges if they are not followed. In the Netherlands, military personnel are convicted by a special military chamber of the Arnhem Civil Court.
This section consists of one military officer and two civilian judges. The decision whether or not to prosecute rests primarily with the (civil) Attorney General.  If convicted, members can be dismissed for misconduct, imprisoned for up to 1 year, forced labour without imprisonment for up to 3 months, and forfeiture of up to two-thirds of their monthly salary for up to 1 year. Recruited members may be reduced to the lowest salary, officers convicted by a special court martial may not be demoted or removed as a special court martial. A court martial is a court case for military personnel that is similar to a civilian trial. It is usually reserved for serious crimes such as criminal offenses. For less serious crimes or violations of military customs and regulations, an extrajudicial punishment (NJP) is usually imposed. NJP is known among the services by various terms, such as «Article 15», «office hours» or «master`s mast». Special courts martial are competent to convict persons subject to the UCMJ for a crime not punishable by death punishable by law and, according to the rules prescribed by the President, for crimes punishable by death. Special courts martial, composed of at least three members, or a military judge and at least three members, or a single military judge if assigned to the court, and the defendant under the same conditions as in ordinary courts martial.
Special courts martial can impose a prison sentence of up to six months. A court martial is a court with special and limited jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that courts martial do not have jurisdiction to try those who are not members of the armed forces, regardless of the close connection between their offense and concerns of military discipline. Three general requirements must be met for courts martial to transfer (1) jurisdiction over the offence, (2) personal jurisdiction over the accused, and (3) a properly convened and constituted court martial. The UCMJ and the rules of courts martial determine who can convene a court martial. Congress introduced a reform with the Military Justice Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-632, 24 October 1968, 82 Stat.
1335), which revised the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Several important changes were made: (1) court martial was introduced to approximate those of the United States District Courts; (2) The judicial officer has been transformed into a military judge, with functions and powers similar to those of a federal district judge; (3) the military judge was protected from any influence by the military authorities; (4) New interlocutory courts of appeal for military reviews have been established in each service; and (5) the accused had the choice between a trial by judge or by jury. Further reforms were made to the Military Justice Act of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-209, 6 December 1983, 97 Stat. 1393), which expressly provided that the United States would review decisions of the Military Court of Appeal.