A separate system of military justice is essential to support operational effectiveness, but if the system lacks independence from the chain of command there is a risk that trials will be unfair, or at least they will be perceived to be unfair. This paper examines the recent Canadian case of R v Edwards which purports to "finally resolve the issues of independence and impartiality". It disagrees with that assertion and suggests there is more to do. It examines the development of military tribunals, examining those where military judges are serving officers and those where they are civilians. It questions whether the safeguards of independence are sufficient for serving officers to sit as military judges and examines the policy and legal issues arising in peace and in war. It concludes that the balance is in favour of civilianisation of the military judiciary, but acknowledges that progress is slow and there are many hurdles to overcome.