Armed Forces Act 2006

23 In section 22 (consequences where appeal under section 21 allowed)—

(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) before “opinion” insert “the”;

(ii) for “court-martial” in both places substitute “Court Martial”;

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) for “court-martial which tried him” substitute “Court Martial”;

(ii) for the words “section 13, 14 or 15 of this Act” substitute “a provision mentioned in section 17(1)”;

(c) for subsection (4) substitute—

“(3A) If the Appeal Court, on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners at least one of whom is duly approved, are of the opinion mentioned in section 16(1)(b) (court below ought to have found defendant unfit to stand trial etc)—

(a) the Court shall substitute for the finding of the Court Martial findings that the appellant was unfit to stand trial and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him; and

(b) section 16(2) to (5) apply as they apply for the purposes of section 16.

(3B) Section 172 of the 2006 Act (meaning of “duly approved” etc) applies for the purposes of subsection (3A) (and references there to the defendant are to be read as references to the appellant).

(4) If the case is not within subsection (2) or (3A), the Appeal Court must quash the finding appealed against.

(5) Where the Appeal Court quash a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, the appellant is to be treated as if he had been acquitted by the Court Martial; but this does not apply if an order under section 19 authorising the appellant to be retried is made.”