Armed Forces Act 1971

50 Army and air-force courts-martial: amendments as to revision and confirmation of findings

(1) Section 109 of the [1955 c. 18.] Army Act 1955 and section 109 of the [1955 c. 19.] Air Force Act 1955 shall each be amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (5) (under which a court-martial directed by a confirming officer to revise a finding of guilty may substitute a different sentence, not being one of greater severity than the original sentence, if the court either adheres to the finding or substitutes therefor a different finding of guilty):—

“(5A) The power conferred by subsection (5) above (as limited by the proviso to that subsection) shall also be exercisable by a court-martial notwithstanding that it substitutes a finding of not guilty for the finding, or each of the findings, to which a direction under this section relates if the original findings of the court included one or more findings of guilty to which the direction does not relate.”

(2) Section 110 of the Army Act 1955 and section 110 of the Air Force Act 1955 shall each be amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (2) (under which, where a confirming officer does not propose to confirm a finding of guilty and the court-martial could on the charge in question have validly made some other such finding, the confirming officer may, instead of withholding confirmation of the finding, substitute that other finding for it):—

“(2A) Where a court-martial has recorded no finding on one or more charges alternative to a charge on which the court has made a finding of guilty, a confirming officer, if he is of opinion that the court must have been satisfied of the facts necessary to justify a finding of guilty on the alternative charge or, as the case may be, one of the alternative charges, may, instead of withholding confirmation of the finding—

(a) substitute for the finding a finding of guilty on the alternative charge, and

(b) substitute for the sentence of the court such sentence as he thinks proper, being in his opinion one which is not of greater severity than that for which it is substituted.”