## Facts

- Lord George Sackville, an army officer, was accused of a military offense (disobedience of orders) committed while he was in active service and pay.
- After the alleged misconduct, Sackville was dismissed from military service and held no current military employment.
- A general court-martial was proposed to try Sackville for the service-connected offense, but doubt arose whether dismissal removed him from military jurisdiction.
- The Crown, through the Lord Keeper, submitted a jurisdictional question to the common-law judges for an advisory opinion.
- The judges issued a collective written certificate dated March 3, 1760, addressing the legality of the proposed court-martial jurisdiction.
- The certificate was not the result of an adversarial proceeding; it was an extrajudicial consultation and contained minimal stated reasoning.

## Issues

1. Whether a former army officer, dismissed from service and without current military employment, may be tried by court-martial for a military offense committed while he was in active service and pay.
2. What weight should be given to an extrajudicial judicial certificate that reserves the judges’ ability to reconsider if the question later arises in ordinary judicial proceedings.

## Decision

- The judges answered that there was no sufficient legal objection to trying the dismissed officer by court-martial for the alleged offense committed while he was in service.
- The certificate stated the judges saw “no ground to doubt” the legality of the court-martial’s jurisdiction in the scenario presented.
- The judges emphasized the advisory and provisional character of their view, indicating willingness to change their opinion if the jurisdictional question later came before them judicially on proper objections.
- The certificate functioned as authorization for the proposed court-martial to proceed on the jurisdictional question.

## Legal Principles

- Court-martial jurisdiction may attach based on the accused’s military status at the time of the alleged offense, even if the accused is no longer in service at the time of trial.
- An extrajudicial certificate offered to the executive is not a final adjudication and may be reconsidered if later presented through ordinary judicial process by an affected party.
- Where judges conclude that no present objection defeats military jurisdiction, the executive may proceed with a court-martial, subject to later judicial review if jurisdiction is challenged through proper legal channels.

## Conclusion

The judges advised that dismissal from military service did not, by itself, bar a court-martial for misconduct committed while the accused was an officer in active service and pay, while reserving the possibility of reconsideration if the issue later arose in a litigated judicial setting.


Lord Sackville’s Case, 28 Eng. Rep. 940 (Ch. 1760)