After each Court Martial, the Senior Military Member sends an internal report to the Chief of Defence Force. For the first time, reports from the past five years have been obtained and can be publicly reported on. Mandated as part of the formal court martial process, these reports detail command issues arising from trials. These reports provide a crucial, albeit sobering, window into the challenges facing the military’s justice system and command climate.

Members of the Armed Forces who face allegations of serious criminal conduct are dealt with by Court Martial. With some important exceptions, a Court Martial follows the same process as a jury trial in the High Court.

Instead of a jury, a Court Martial has “Military Members” who like a jury, decide whether the charges have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike a jury, the Military Members work with the Judge to decide what the sentence should be.

There are normally three Military Members, but there can be up to five. The most senior member (like a jury foreperson) is called the Senior Military Member.

When analysed collectively, they reveal distinct and persistent patterns of concern that stretch across different services, ranks, and types of offences. These recurring issues – from systemic delays and substance abuse problems to failures in leadership and process – paint a complex picture demanding ongoing attention within the NZDF.

Justice Delayed: A Persistent Burden

One of the most striking and frequently condemned issues is the excessive delay endemic to the military justice process. Report after report highlights unacceptable timeframes between alleged offences, investigations commencing, and the final Court Martial convening. This isn’t a minor inconvenience; it’s a systemic problem with severe consequences.

In the case of Aircrewmen Davies and Fairbank, the investigation took approximately 14 months, impacting the individuals (who couldn’t perform their primary roles) and their unit’s morale and productivity.
For Lance Corporal Taufa, charged with violence, over three years elapsed between the incident and the conclusion, with an 18-month Military Police investigation phase significantly contributing to the delay, further victimizing the victims and turning the perpetrator into “a victim” of the process.
Similar delays plagued fraud investigations (Corporals Mailata and Taua: 19 months Military Police investigation plus 9 months to Court Martial) and drug cases (Corporals Davenport and Wright: over 950 days from detection to Court Martial; an unnamed soldier facing LSD charges waited 414 days for trial ).
Even cases involving sexual offences faced protracted timelines, such as R v Boyd (over 425 days excluding COVID impacts) and Flying Officer D (nearly two years). An Officer Cadet case stretched over 5.7 years from the alleged incident to the Court Martial.

The impacts are consistently negative: witness recall degrades, accused personnel face prolonged stress and uncertainty, often while suspended or unable to progress their careers (impacting security clearances, course attendance, or deployment eligibility), units bear administrative burdens, and the fundamental principle of timely justice is undermined.

Critically, these delays often force sentencing adjustments unrelated to the offence itself, either reducing sentences significantly (a 25% reduction for Davenport/Wright, 20% for the unnamed soldier) or drastically altering sentencing options due to changes in the offender’s personal circumstances during the interim, as seen in the case of Lance Corporal Tapara who became a nursing mother while awaiting trial.

The Pervasive Influence of Alcohol and Drugs

Substance misuse emerges as a powerful catalyst for misconduct across numerous reports. Alcohol is frequently cited as a primary contributing factor in cases involving assault, insubordination, inappropriate behaviour, and sexual offending. Reports explicitly reference a “problematic culture around excessive alcohol consumption” that persists despite organisational efforts. Examples include:

A Burnham Court Martial where excessive alcohol consumption was deemed a “significant cause” of offending, contributing to an environment where female members felt unsafe.
The case of Major Putze, where a correlation between alcohol access and offending was noted.
The Court Martial of Able Rate E, where alcohol was the “key factor” in indecent assaults onboard a ship.
Multiple other cases link excessive drinking directly to insubordination, poor judgement between ranks, and sexual offences.

Beyond alcohol, illicit drug use (including MDMA, Methamphetamine, Cannabis, and LSD) forms the basis of several Courts Martial. Concerns are raised about the potential prevalence of drug use being higher than previously thought, potentially reflecting an “erosion In NZDF values and an emerging nonchalant attitude” in some quarters. One case highlighted an offender’s apparent lack of awareness regarding the seriousness (Class A status) and health risks of LSD.

These incidents fuel questions about the effectiveness of harm minimisation programs (like Op STAND), the adequacy of drug testing regimes (with LSD potentially chosen to evade detection by standard urinalysis), and the strength of supervision and control within barracks and messes.

Lapses in Leadership, Welfare, and Administration

The reports don’t shy away from identifying instances where command structures or organisational processes failed personnel. Several cases point to inadequate duty of care or welfare support.

The Lance Corporal Taufa case stands out, suggesting an organisational failure to address underlying anger issues after a 2012 offence, ultimately “setting the conditions of failure” by returning him to a command role without intervention.
Failures in post-deployment support were noted in the Burnham Court Martial case and the Lance Corporal Tapara case.
Concerns were raised about support for personnel during protracted disciplinary processes, with one accused (Leading Aircraftman Leger) feeling treated as “guilty until proven innocent”.

Supervision failures also feature, ranging from inadequate oversight of aircraft maintenance procedures (Sergeant Repko case) to lack of control in messes during functions involving alcohol. Decisions around personnel management, such as promoting an individual against their will (Sergeant Repko) or placing someone facing serious charges in a position requiring role modelling (Corporal Davenport), were questioned.

Administrative shortcomings created vulnerabilities, seen in the fraud case enabled by poor travel claim processes within 1 NZ SAS and the theft case where failures in property disposal procedures (use of uncontrolled ‘Free Bins’, dumping of serviceable equipment) arguably created a valid ‘claim of right’ defence for the accused, Staff Sergeant Egerton.

Doubts Cast on Investigation Quality and Process Integrity

The effectiveness and impartiality of Military Police investigations are recurring themes. Beyond timeliness, questions arise about investigative rigour and technique.

A report from a Court Martial in Ohakea report noted evidence presented by a Military Police investigator “appeared to lack rigour,” possibly due to the witness’s lack of involvement in all aspects of the investigation.
Poor interview notification (invitation “for a chat”) and technique by an inexperienced Military Police member were highlighted in the Sergeant Emerson case.
Concerns about accused personnel lacking legal counsel during crucial early interviews arose in the Officer Cadet case.
In the Sergeant H trial, the collection of incomplete CCTV evidence by Military Police significantly weakened the prosecution case, alongside a perception that Military Police may have pre-judged the accused.
In the Staff Sergeant Egerton case, Military Police failed to pursue lines of inquiry that could have corroborated or disproven the accused’s defence regarding how he obtained items, and their demeanour under cross-examination was seen as defensive.

Wider process issues include the decision in the Egerton case by the Director Defence Legal Services to proceed directly to Court Martial, bypassing the Summary Trial process, which drew criticism for causing unnecessary delay and expense given the nature of the charges. Furthermore, procedural gaps for sexual harm support staff interacting with Military Police led to potential evidence contamination in one trial.

Sentencing Framework Under the Microscope

The reports reveal consistent unease among the Military Members regarding the military sentencing framework. A major point of contention is the limited range of sentencing options available, particularly the stark choice between imprisonment/dismissal and lesser penalties, lacking intermediate options like home detention or community service common in civilian courts. This is especially problematic for officers, for whom service detention isn’t an option.

The perceived lack of parity with the civilian system is a recurring concern, with the non-availability of parole or home detention potentially leading to military members serving significantly longer effective sentences for similar offences. The basis for comparing service detention and prison (the ‘2-for-1’ rule) is repeatedly described as subjective or lacking scientific grounding.

Clarity on the application of ‘Service Nexus’ and the actual capacity of service to handle longer sentences are also sought. Finally, the effectiveness of sentences as a deterrent is frequently questioned, linked to poor communication of Court Martial outcomes within the NZDF.

Enduring Cultural Issues and Bystander Apathy

Despite high-profile initiatives like Operation RESPECT, Military Members confirm that harmful behaviours persist. Sexual misconduct, abuse of rank, and inappropriate behaviour between ranks feature in numerous cases.

A particularly troubling pattern is the repeated failure of bystanders – often peers or even non-commissioned officers present during incidents – to intervene. This occurred in situations involving excessive intoxication and even alleged assaults (Arch Hill Court Martial). This suggests that while awareness of expected standards might exist, the confidence, willingness, or perceived responsibility to step in is lacking.

The Military Members recommend reviewing the effectiveness and delivery of training like Sexual Ethics and Respectful Relationships and Bystander Intervention workshops.

Difficulties in reporting misconduct, especially against superiors, and instances of “misguided loyalties” potentially leading to victim-blaming further illustrate ongoing cultural challenges.

Conclusion: A Call for Sustained Action

The Senior Military Members reports, taken together, provide invaluable internal feedback on the NZDF’s disciplinary system and associated command environment. The recurrence of issues concerning delays, substance misuse, leadership failures, investigative shortcomings, sentencing complexities, and cultural challenges across multiple reports spanning several years indicates deep-rooted problems rather than isolated incidents.

The Senior Military Members highlight areas where systems, processes, training, resourcing, and potentially culture require significant and sustained attention to ensure the NZDF not only upholds military discipline effectively but does so in a manner that is timely, fair, supportive of its personnel, and consistent with its stated values.