Yes, we've obviously heard that expressed by some in the public, some commentators. I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding. I don't want to speak for the commentators--they can defend themselves--but my perception is that they were perhaps equating it with kind of a jury, that only those who had fought the fights or were in those tough scenarios could truly sit in judgment.
Well, first of all, if you do compare it to a jury...which, as Colonel Gleeson has outlined, is not the exact same. The military panel is different. Even in a jury, when you say “peers”, it's not a reflection; if someone who's on trial is a doctor, the jury isn't all about doctors in order to understand the full context.
I think what's key, underlying the panel philosophy, is an understanding of discipline. Whether it's army, navy, or air force is in many ways irrelevant, because the code of service discipline applies across the board. When you have individuals who may not have seen combat in a particular scenario.... They may have been captain of a ship, for instance, and seen combat in a naval context but not in an army. I think it would be, in my humble opinion, quite a stretch to simply say they're not competent to sit in judgment of someone who fought in a land war, for instance.
As long as they understand, at heart, what discipline really means, and understand the elements of the offence as explained by the trained judge who sits with them, then I think that is more than sufficient to give confidence that the system is working well.