## Facts

- Dean Morris was a serving British Army soldier.
- Morris went absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit and was later arrested and charged under military law for the AWOL offence.
- He was tried by a district court-martial.
- The court-martial was a three-member military tribunal consisting of a permanent president and two junior officer members.
- Morris pleaded guilty.
- The court-martial sentenced Morris to dismissal from the Army and nine months’ detention.
- Under the United Kingdom’s then-applicable military justice arrangements, guilty findings and sentences from a court-martial were reviewed by the Defence Council.
- As reviewing authority, the Defence Council had power to quash a guilty finding or sentence, make findings of guilt that could have been made by the court-martial, and substitute a lighter sentence.
- Morris petitioned the Defence Council to reconsider the verdict and sentence; the Defence Council declined to alter any aspect of the outcome.
- Morris applied to the Strasbourg institutions, alleging that he was denied a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, and raising complaints connected to fairness and legal assistance.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court-martial that tried Morris could be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal, given the role of serving officer members and the Defence Council’s powers as reviewing authority.
2. Whether there were additional violations of Article 6 § 1 based on the fairness of Morris’s proceedings as conducted.
3. Whether Article 6 § 3(c) (alone or read with Article 6 § 1) was violated because Morris did not receive legal assistance in the manner he claimed was required (including complaints linked to legal aid and representation at the court-martial).

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 6 § 1 as to certain complaints about the overall court-martial arrangements, holding that Morris’s doubts about independence and “tribunal” status were objectively justified in light of the position and powers of the two serving officer members and the Defence Council’s role as reviewing authority.
- The Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1 in relation to Morris’s remaining fairness complaints about how the proceedings were handled in his particular case.
- The Court found no violation of Article 6 § 3(c) (and no violation of Article 6 § 1 read together with Article 6 § 3(c)) concerning Morris’s complaints about legal assistance.
- On just satisfaction, the Court awarded relief consistent with its practice where a finding of a Convention breach may constitute sufficient reparation for non-pecuniary harm, and it made an award as to costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6 § 1 requires that a person charged with a criminal offence be tried by a tribunal that is independent and impartial; the assessment looks to safeguards against outside pressure and whether doubts about independence are objectively justified.
- Independence analysis considers, among other factors, the tribunal’s composition and the relationship (in law and in practice) between decision-makers and the executive.
- The participation of serving officers as members of a military tribunal can raise objective doubts about independence where their status and functions leave room for concerns about chain-of-command influence.
- Review arrangements matter to Article 6 § 1: where an executive body has significant powers to intervene in findings or sentences, that feature can add to doubts about whether the process meets the Convention standard for a “tribunal.”
- Article 6 § 3(c) guarantees the right to legal assistance, including free legal aid where the interests of justice so require; whether legal aid is required depends on factors such as the seriousness of the matter, the complexity of the case, and the accused’s ability to present a defence.
- A finding that Article 6 § 1 is breached because of institutional features does not automatically require a separate finding that the applicant’s individual hearing was unfair in every respect.

## Conclusion

In *Morris v. United Kingdom*, the ECtHR held that Article 6 § 1 was violated because the court-martial framework—particularly the role of two serving officer members and the Defence Council’s wide reviewing powers—made Morris’s doubts about the tribunal’s independence objectively justified, but the Court rejected his remaining complaints, including those alleging unfairness in the conduct of his own proceedings and denial of rights to legal assistance under Article 6 § 3(c).


Morris v. United Kingdom, App. No. 38784/97, 34 E.H.R.R. 1253 (2002)