## Facts

- Alan Martin, a dependant of a British serviceman stationed in Germany, was accused of murdering a German civilian in Germany.
- German authorities investigated initially and later waived their primary right to prosecute, allowing United Kingdom authorities to proceed.
- British military authorities charged Martin with murder and convened a court-martial in Germany.
- By the time of trial, Martin and his father had returned to England and were civilians.
- Key prosecution witnesses were German residents who could not be compelled to testify in an English civilian court.
- Martin was convicted of murder by the court-martial.

## Issues

1. Whether trying a civilian (by the time of trial) by court-martial in Germany, rather than in an English jury trial, was so unfair or oppressive as to constitute an abuse of process.
2. Whether the decision to proceed by court-martial, instead of referring the matter to ordinary civilian courts under Army Act 1955 § 77A, was so flawed as to warrant setting aside the conviction.

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.
- The court held there was no abuse of process and no breach of the governing statutory rules.
- Parliament had authorized court-martial jurisdiction in circumstances covering offences abroad by dependants of service personnel.
- Practical considerations, including difficulty securing crucial German witnesses for an English civilian trial, supported the chosen forum.
- Although concerns were expressed about whether § 77A discretion and an opportunity for representations were clearly addressed, the deficiencies shown did not meet the threshold to invalidate the proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- When Parliament confers court-martial jurisdiction for serious offences committed abroad (including by service dependants), the fact that the accused is a civilian at trial and could theoretically be tried in ordinary courts does not, by itself, establish abuse of process.
- An abuse of process challenge requires a showing of unlawful, oppressive, bad-faith, or seriously procedurally defective use of the forum; mere dissatisfaction with the forum choice is insufficient where statutory requirements are met.
- Practical necessity relevant to securing essential evidence may justify proceeding by overseas court-martial.
- Where a statutory discretion exists to prefer civilian proceedings “in the interests of the better administration of justice,” decision-makers should meaningfully consider it; however, absent proof of a mandatory breach or resulting serious unfairness, imperfect documentation or process will not automatically vitiate jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords upheld the overseas court-martial conviction, finding that statutory authorization and the absence of bad faith or serious procedural unfairness defeated the abuse-of-process claim, while signaling that clearer consideration and recording of the civilian-forum discretion is advisable in future cases involving civilians.


R v. Martin, [1998] A.C. 917 (H.L. 1997)