The superior in question was asleep at the time and so any action took place without his consent. Sexual contact without consent is a crime. You certainly cannot assume consent of a person who is asleep.
Also, if the judges are outside the chain of command, then who do they answer to?
Ultimately the Governor General who, as well as being the Queen's representative in Australia, and therefore Australia's de facto head of state, is also Commander-In-Chief of all Australian Defence Forces under the Constitution. There is also provision in the Act for appeals to a specific Defence Force Discipline Appeals Tribunal, which would be appointed from state and federal judges.
If it’s not a military authority, then how can they not be expected to answer to the requirements of a civillian court?
In most cases, the AMC would function in a very similar way to a civilian court. The reason for using the Defence powers under 86(vi) of the Constitution, rather than the Judicial Powers in establishing the court primarily came down to the fact that previous High Court decisions had indicated that service tribunals (which the AMC was intended to replace) should be and could be established in that way. It will be interesting to find out why the High Court has either changed its mind, or found the AMC to be a different case.
Thanks for explaining the details to me. It sounds like a real mess.
I still don’t think that prank rised to the level of sending a guy to jail though. Amongst young guys drinking, it’s often an “unwritten law” that if you pass out at a party, you are at the whim of your buddies for these type of stunts. If this happened between two civillians, the police would most likely have laughed at the idea of arresting someone over this. The situation in the military involving a superior officer is obviously more serious, but then again, the officer placed himself in a bad position by getting intoxicated while fraternizing with his men.