| dc.description.abstract | The military is considered as a society of
its own with their codes of conduct and rules applying
in a different manner from their civilian counterpart.
It aims to maintain strict discipline in the military
system itself, ready to fight a war when the country is
facing a threat. When it comes to the military justice
system, it is also built upon the notion of maintaining
strict discipline within the military system, where
swiftness and efficiency of justice is considered as a
paramount concern. The military justice system
consists of two main mechanisms which are
introduced to achieve this end, which includes a Court
Martial and a Summary Trial. While a Court Martial is
more of an ordinary mechanism of delivering justice
as we find within the civilian society, except for the
fact that only persons subjected to military law are
brought before them, a Military Summary Trial is
something which is unique and distinctive as the
commanding officer concern is given a wide variety of
power and discretion in conducting and delivering an
appropriate judgement in such a trial. By employing a
doctrinal approach founded in the qualitative
methodology, this research endeavours to critically
comment on the applicability of natural justice in
conducting such a trial and whether tilting the
balance of those scales could be justified within the
military justice system. The results revealed that,
while the military justice system is both unique and
distinct from what you would find in a civilian society,
lowering down the scales of natural justice even
within a Military Summary Trial cannot be
entertained, and therefore, the existing procedures
require a revision to maintain the scales of natural
justice unstilted at whatever occasion. | en_US |
