Military Law
Military Law was enforced, not only to discipline soldiers but to hold standards amongst those awarding punishments as well. There were specific rules and regulations that had to be abided by in order to successfully carry out a sentence; from a disciplinary viewpoint and so that the soldier acknowledged how seriously he had offended. New Zealand had many acts, including the Defence Acts, Army Act, Rules of Procedure, King’s Regulations and New Zealand Regulations which contained such standards and procedures that were to be abided by when sentencing a soldier. Military Law was the grounding principle for soldiers and officers to hold themselves in conduct in sentencing and receiving the punishment.
Basis of Military Law
Procedures of sentencing an offender under the guidelines of Military Law
Passchendaele and Sir Andrew Russell
Strain from excessive loss and the need to strengthen divisions caused Russell to increase numbers for brigades. This placed a further stress on New Zealanders, as they had to leave their homes and their livelihoods to fight in the war. A notable strain was on the farming industry as farmers were targeted as reinforcements for the war. Russell increased punishment, fitness regimes and overall set out to tighten units and increase their fighting ability in the war. Morale would have increased if men saw they were ‘winning’; they were able to ‘win’ by their preparedness. Russell saw this window of opportunity and set about preparing men more. There was indeed a tightening of discipline after the Etaples incident where mutiny broke out. To summarize the reasons for an increase or decrease in morale was down to basic reasons such as living conditions, food, sickness, living in death (e.g. watching innocent people die and seeing strewn dead bodies) and changes in personnel and men in units. Understandably, with changes in personnel would also bring different applications of discipline and different ways of approaching combat. Too much change would have distracted men and made them restless in the scheme of the conflict.
Field Punishment
Field punishment was often criticised for being serve not only in its treatment but also in the length of time it was awarded. Field punishment was the most common means of punishment used among Anzac corps, in France, following suit of the British, along with Canada and Australia. Field punishment was not limited to detention and deduction of pay but also incorporated Field Punishment No.1 and No.2. The reason for field punishment was defined to two reasons; to humiliate the men and to serve as a deterrent for the unit. As recorded in Archibald Baxter’s memoir, field punishment physically and mentally broke the men and was noted by COs how morale increased and decreased due to the use of this punishment. Some men were deterred to commit offences however field punishment was almost a cause for the men to act out and push officers to award them with such punishment. Field punishment was awarded in accordance of the individual’s behaviour and temperament e.g. those who were stead fast in resisting discipline were awarded a heavier sentenced punishment and those who accepted the discipline were awarded a lighter sentence. Field punishment increased from May to December 1916 where Field Punishment No.1 and 2 were awarded 144 times. This only accounted for 8-10% of known offences and it is said that 400-500 more men were awarded with field punishment. By 1917, 189 New Zealanders were awarded Field Punishment No.1 and 246 New Zealanders were awarded Field Punishment No.2 To compare this to the Australian division, 2504 men were awarded field punishment in 1918. An increase was noted over this time and one of the reasons was that NCOs and officers who did not meet fighting standards were placed in positions of authority to award punishments. They did not understand how discipline would affect the men and the severity to place the punishments at. Mostly, these inexperienced officers used field punishment more. It has been noted that this was a recurring pattern in New Zealand Divisions and it can be suggested that field punishment was a popular sentence. Maybe because it was a new sentence and perhaps there was a decrease in offences that lead to field punishment becoming a favourite sentence.
Field Punishment No. 1
The understanding that Field Punishment No 1. was not a new form of punishment but instead was used as a replacement to 19th century punishments such as flogging. The purpose to implement field punishment was to publicly humiliate the men and to serve as a visible deterrent for the rest of the unit; this was a recurring pattern found through the sentencing of Field Punishment No.1. Field Punishment No.1 was not sentenced lightly; there were many regulations and restrictions officers had to abide by and offences such as desertion were punishable by death. Punishment of offenders were taken seriously by the New Zealand divisions as a whole; field punishment camps moved with the units, however were not to be mistreated as its use was bound by military manuals. A revised Manual of Military Law, in 1917, replaced the existing one and further placed restrictions. The revision of sentencing and punishments was the way officials and the New Zealand government on a whole tried to keep men from abusing their power and unnecessarily sentencing men for offences that weren’t of a particular breach of crime. The whereabouts of the 14 conscientious objectors, sent to France, also became an issue as Minister of Defence, James Allen, decidedly didn’t want anything to do with them. However, some of conscientious objectors were probed into becoming stretcher bearers; it was only Baxter and Briggs that withstood the cold and hard conditions of field punishment. Field Punishment No.2 was carried out in similar conditions, however the convicted man was not tied to a fixed object. Usually, the men had to set about doing tasks or complete further sentences set by the officers in charge.
Conditions of Field Punishment No.1
Rules for Field Punishment in Section 44 of the Army Act
1. A court-martial, or a commanding officer, may award field punishment for any offence committed on active service, and may sentence an offender for a period not exceeding, in the case of a court-martial three months, and in the case of a commanding officer twenty-eight days, to one of the following field punishments, namely:–
Field Punishment No. 1
Field Punishment No. 2.
2. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 1, he may, during the continuance of his sentence, unless the court-martial or the commanding officer otherwise directs, be punished as follows:–
A. He may be kept in irons, i.e., in fetters or handcuffs, or both fetters and handcuffs; and may be secured so as to prevent his escape.
B. When in irons he may be attached for a period or periods not exceeding two hours in any one day to a fixed object, but he must not be so attached during more than three out of any four consecutive days, nor during more than twenty-one days in all.
C. Straps or ropes may be used for the purpose of these rules in lieu of irons.
D. He may be subjected to the like labour, employment, and restraint, and dealt with in like manner as if he were under a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour.
3. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 2, the foregoing rule with respect to field punishment No. 1 shall apply to him, except that he shall not be liable to be attached to a fixed object as provided by paragraph of Rule 2.
4. Every portion of a field punishment shall be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated not to cause injury or to leave any permanent mark on the offender; and a portion of a field punishment must be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender’s health.
5. Field punishment will be carried out regimentally when the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, but when the unit is halted at any place where there is a provost marshal, or an assistant provost marshal, the punishment will be carried out under that officer.
6. When the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, an offender awarded field punishment No. 1 shall be exempt from the operation of Rule (2), but all offenders awarded field punishment shall march with their unit, carry their arms and accoutrements, perform all their military duties as well as extra fatigue duties, and be treated as defaulters.
Military Law was enforced, not only to discipline soldiers but to hold standards amongst those awarding punishments as well. There were specific rules and regulations that had to be abided by in order to successfully carry out a sentence; from a disciplinary viewpoint and so that the soldier acknowledged how seriously he had offended. New Zealand had many acts, including the Defence Acts, Army Act, Rules of Procedure, King’s Regulations and New Zealand Regulations which contained such standards and procedures that were to be abided by when sentencing a soldier. Military Law was the grounding principle for soldiers and officers to hold themselves in conduct in sentencing and receiving the punishment.
Basis of Military Law
- Military law is what binds officers, N.C.O.s, warrant officers and men of the Permanent Force to carry out just sentences of discipline and field punishment- military law is the binding principle etc..
- Men who were on active service were dealt with under the Army Act, Rules of Procedure and King’s Regulations.
- New Zealand Expeditionary Forces were subjected to military law under the Army Act both in and out of New Zealand during WWI.
- No officer can sentence an offender with a punishment that is not under the regulations of military law. The harshness of the sentence will be awarded according to the military law. Through this, there is no abuse of power and no swapping of punishment length and severity due to the officer’s wishing or personal tie to the individual.
- District Court- martial is considered a ‘junior court’. If the accused has offended to highly, then his case must be moved to the General Court- martial where a trail will take place.
Procedures of sentencing an offender under the guidelines of Military Law
- Upon having found out that an officer or soldier has committed an offence, they must be placed under arrest promptly. From here, a decision will be made on the punishment and the application of it.
- A written accounted of the accused’s offences must be written by those who have arrested him. This gives the council recorded evidence of what the offender has done so they can go back and refer to it. Thus, appropriate sentences will be administered on this evidence.
- The accused, in certain cases, has the right to a Court- martial. A Commanding Officer also has the right to refer the case to a Court- martial and he must decide to trial by General Court- martial or District Court- martial.
- The charge has to be ‘worded’ or presented in a way where the accused knows what he could face.
Passchendaele and Sir Andrew Russell
Strain from excessive loss and the need to strengthen divisions caused Russell to increase numbers for brigades. This placed a further stress on New Zealanders, as they had to leave their homes and their livelihoods to fight in the war. A notable strain was on the farming industry as farmers were targeted as reinforcements for the war. Russell increased punishment, fitness regimes and overall set out to tighten units and increase their fighting ability in the war. Morale would have increased if men saw they were ‘winning’; they were able to ‘win’ by their preparedness. Russell saw this window of opportunity and set about preparing men more. There was indeed a tightening of discipline after the Etaples incident where mutiny broke out. To summarize the reasons for an increase or decrease in morale was down to basic reasons such as living conditions, food, sickness, living in death (e.g. watching innocent people die and seeing strewn dead bodies) and changes in personnel and men in units. Understandably, with changes in personnel would also bring different applications of discipline and different ways of approaching combat. Too much change would have distracted men and made them restless in the scheme of the conflict.
Field Punishment
Field punishment was often criticised for being serve not only in its treatment but also in the length of time it was awarded. Field punishment was the most common means of punishment used among Anzac corps, in France, following suit of the British, along with Canada and Australia. Field punishment was not limited to detention and deduction of pay but also incorporated Field Punishment No.1 and No.2. The reason for field punishment was defined to two reasons; to humiliate the men and to serve as a deterrent for the unit. As recorded in Archibald Baxter’s memoir, field punishment physically and mentally broke the men and was noted by COs how morale increased and decreased due to the use of this punishment. Some men were deterred to commit offences however field punishment was almost a cause for the men to act out and push officers to award them with such punishment. Field punishment was awarded in accordance of the individual’s behaviour and temperament e.g. those who were stead fast in resisting discipline were awarded a heavier sentenced punishment and those who accepted the discipline were awarded a lighter sentence. Field punishment increased from May to December 1916 where Field Punishment No.1 and 2 were awarded 144 times. This only accounted for 8-10% of known offences and it is said that 400-500 more men were awarded with field punishment. By 1917, 189 New Zealanders were awarded Field Punishment No.1 and 246 New Zealanders were awarded Field Punishment No.2 To compare this to the Australian division, 2504 men were awarded field punishment in 1918. An increase was noted over this time and one of the reasons was that NCOs and officers who did not meet fighting standards were placed in positions of authority to award punishments. They did not understand how discipline would affect the men and the severity to place the punishments at. Mostly, these inexperienced officers used field punishment more. It has been noted that this was a recurring pattern in New Zealand Divisions and it can be suggested that field punishment was a popular sentence. Maybe because it was a new sentence and perhaps there was a decrease in offences that lead to field punishment becoming a favourite sentence.
Field Punishment No. 1
The understanding that Field Punishment No 1. was not a new form of punishment but instead was used as a replacement to 19th century punishments such as flogging. The purpose to implement field punishment was to publicly humiliate the men and to serve as a visible deterrent for the rest of the unit; this was a recurring pattern found through the sentencing of Field Punishment No.1. Field Punishment No.1 was not sentenced lightly; there were many regulations and restrictions officers had to abide by and offences such as desertion were punishable by death. Punishment of offenders were taken seriously by the New Zealand divisions as a whole; field punishment camps moved with the units, however were not to be mistreated as its use was bound by military manuals. A revised Manual of Military Law, in 1917, replaced the existing one and further placed restrictions. The revision of sentencing and punishments was the way officials and the New Zealand government on a whole tried to keep men from abusing their power and unnecessarily sentencing men for offences that weren’t of a particular breach of crime. The whereabouts of the 14 conscientious objectors, sent to France, also became an issue as Minister of Defence, James Allen, decidedly didn’t want anything to do with them. However, some of conscientious objectors were probed into becoming stretcher bearers; it was only Baxter and Briggs that withstood the cold and hard conditions of field punishment. Field Punishment No.2 was carried out in similar conditions, however the convicted man was not tied to a fixed object. Usually, the men had to set about doing tasks or complete further sentences set by the officers in charge.
Conditions of Field Punishment No.1
- Convicted men placed in handcuffs, fetters or a similar restraint.
- They were attached to a fixed object such as a post, gun wheel or fence. Under New Zealand military law, men were attached to a post that was tipped forward, cutting off blood circulation. However, the men had to be in a position where their feet were touching the ground.
- The sentence was applied up to 4 hours, 3 days out of 4 and up to 21 days total.
Rules for Field Punishment in Section 44 of the Army Act
1. A court-martial, or a commanding officer, may award field punishment for any offence committed on active service, and may sentence an offender for a period not exceeding, in the case of a court-martial three months, and in the case of a commanding officer twenty-eight days, to one of the following field punishments, namely:–
Field Punishment No. 1
Field Punishment No. 2.
2. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 1, he may, during the continuance of his sentence, unless the court-martial or the commanding officer otherwise directs, be punished as follows:–
A. He may be kept in irons, i.e., in fetters or handcuffs, or both fetters and handcuffs; and may be secured so as to prevent his escape.
B. When in irons he may be attached for a period or periods not exceeding two hours in any one day to a fixed object, but he must not be so attached during more than three out of any four consecutive days, nor during more than twenty-one days in all.
C. Straps or ropes may be used for the purpose of these rules in lieu of irons.
D. He may be subjected to the like labour, employment, and restraint, and dealt with in like manner as if he were under a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour.
3. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 2, the foregoing rule with respect to field punishment No. 1 shall apply to him, except that he shall not be liable to be attached to a fixed object as provided by paragraph of Rule 2.
4. Every portion of a field punishment shall be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated not to cause injury or to leave any permanent mark on the offender; and a portion of a field punishment must be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender’s health.
5. Field punishment will be carried out regimentally when the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, but when the unit is halted at any place where there is a provost marshal, or an assistant provost marshal, the punishment will be carried out under that officer.
6. When the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, an offender awarded field punishment No. 1 shall be exempt from the operation of Rule (2), but all offenders awarded field punishment shall march with their unit, carry their arms and accoutrements, perform all their military duties as well as extra fatigue duties, and be treated as defaulters.