User:The C of E/sword

The usage of swords in court martials had been an established tradition within the British armed forces. Commissioned officers would be obliged to put their swords on the court table as a symbol of their reputation with the sword's point being pointed towards them if they had been found guilty. The practice was abolished in 2004 following accusations that it was demeaning under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Practice
Traditionally in British court martials, all court officials would wear swords as well as all officers, regardless of if they were the defense, prosecution or a witness. All accused regardless of rank would be marched into the courtroom by an armed escort. If they were an officer, their escort would carry a drawn sword. If the accused was not an officer, the escort would carry a drawn cutlass. The accused officer would then have to lay his sword lengthwise on the court table as a symbol of putting his commission and reputation as a gentleman on the line. When the verdict was decided, the judge would move the sword. If the point of the sword pointed towards the accused, it meant they had been found guilty. If the sword was either unmoved or the hilt of the sword was pointing towards the accused then he had been found not guilty.

Abolition in the UK
In 2000, two weeks after the implementation of the Human Rights Act, a court martial was challenged that all swords should be removed from court as it was claimed to be "degrading". The Judge Advocate at the trial agreed for all present to remove their swords but did so under common law practice that they were an "unnecessary encumbrance". The case of Grieves v United Kingdom brought the issue of using swords within court martials to the European Court of Human Rights however the court gave no specific ruling with regard to it. Despite the European Court not making any comment with regard to swords, in 2004 Her Majesty's Government declared that it would no longer require the accused to be marched in with an armed escort nor would any members present wear sheathed swords. This came after Grieves'solicitor had written to the Secretary of State for Defense comparing it to a "Gilbert and Sullivan opera" and threatened to go back to the European Court fora ruling on it for being intimidating. In response, the Secretary stated that swords would no longer be required though pointed out that naval officers would be used to seeing fellow officers with swords and were more likely to be intimidated by a barrister in a wig and gown.

Despite abolition in the United Kingdom, the Royal Australian Navy retains the practice of the sword on the table at court martials. The Indian Army also retains the tradition via its historic links as the British Raj within the British Empire.