Quinn v. Chief of Army
Australia Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal
[2001] ADFDAT 4 (2001)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Troy Quinn (defendant) subjected a group of platoon commanders to a training exercise to test the commanders’ ability to handle jungle combat. The commanders were not aware that the exercise was also designed to test their ability to handle being ambushed and captured in a jungle-combat environment. Lieutenant David Good was one of the platoon commanders and was inferior in rank to Quinn. During the exercise, Good was ambushed and restrained. A pillowcase was placed over Good’s head and taped on over his eyes. Good’s hands were also bound. Good was subjected to a simulated interrogation with unpleasant tactics in hot, humid conditions for several hours, without food. A medic was on hand during the entire time period of Good’s simulated capture. Good did not get dehydrated and did not suffer anything more than transient discomfort. It was undisputed that Quinn did not have any ill will toward Good and that Quinn had not singled out Good for special mistreatment. Quinn was charged with ill-treatment of an inferior member of the military. The military judge found that the training was not appropriate military training and convicted Quinn of committing the offense of ill-treatment. Quinn appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.