Courts martial are, as their name implies, the Army equivalent of civilian courts. The same rules of evidence apply and the accused has essentially the same rights.
When a member of the Army is accused of an offence under military regulations there are two ways this can be dealt with. If it is a minor offence committed by an ordinary soldier, it can be dealt with in a summary fashion by the senior officer commanding.
The soldier has the right, if he (or she) is dissatisfied with the decision, to appeal to a court martial. This is a limited court martial, and between 10 and 20 of them take place every year.
More serious offences, and offences allegedly committed by officers, are dealt with by general courts martial, consisting of a panel of five of the officers' peers, or fellow-officers of equal or greater rank. They are assisted by a judge-advocate, who is a legally trained officer, and advises on points of law. The court judges on points of fact, not law. The accused is entitled to be represented by an officer from among the Army's legal officers, who are barristers, or by a civilian legal team.
The penalties available to the court martial are, in order of severity, a reprimand, a severe reprimand, a fine of not more than 20 days' pay, loss of seniority within his or her rank, reduction of rank, imprisonment followed by dismissal and dismissal with ignominy.
General courts martial are quite rare, and the offences are usually serious. The last one concerning a commandant was in 1982, when he was charged with improper use of military personnel. He was convicted and suffered a severe reprimand and loss of seniority.
The court in this case consists of Lieut Col Aidan Martin, Comdts Brian McQuaid, Chris Droney and Ian Folan, and is presided over by Col Sean Brennan. The judge advocate is Lieut Col William Knott.