Australia to ask England to re-open Breaker Morant (Boer War) case (1 Viewer)

[The Military Workshop]

The below is from the newspaper in Oz today although a Google search will show this has been discussed a lot previously :

ALMOST 110 years after he was executed by firing squad, "Breaker" Morant is a step closer to a pardon.
The Federal Government is to ask Britain to reopen the case of Morant and Peter Handcock - the only Australian soldiers executed as war criminals.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has indicated he will write to Britain's Defence Secretary asking him to revisit the case because there had been a "denial of procedural fairness".

"I have been persuaded that this case does raise procedural fairness concerns," Mr McClelland said.

The Attorney-General's Department is also conducting a legal review of material uncovered in the British archives by Navy Reserve lawyer James Unkles.

It suggests lieutenants Morant and Handcock and comrade George Witton were following orders in killing Boer prisoners in August and September 1901.

The case was depicted in Bruce Beresford's award-winning 1980 film Breaker Morant, starring Edward Woodward, Jack Thompson and Bryan Brown.

Morant and Handcock were executed by firing squad on February 26, 1902, just 18 hours after sentence.

The archive papers include an opinion from the Judge Advocate General, Col James St. Clair, that the "no prisoners" order was issued by Morant's superiors, captains Alfred Taylor and Percy Hunt.

Charges against Taylor, the intelligence officer for British commander-in-chief Lord Kitchener, were dismissed. Hunt had earlier been killed by the enemy.

In a document dated November 22, 1901, Col St. Clair said: "I agree with the opinion of the Court of Inquiry - the order given by Captain Taylor that no prisoners were to be taken was against the usage of modern warfare ... he is liable to a charge of murder.

"The verbal orders given by Captain Taylor rendered him primarily responsible for these massacres ... "

Will be interesting to see if the UK re-opens the case.

Regards
Brett

 

[Mitch]

following orders is not seen as a defence? I would think this should stand regardless from reading it they either acted on their own or, orders but, did not see anything where they were wrongly accused of the act itself.

I think our defence secratary may be on extended vacation soon but, if they address it to adam werrity he may ''advise'' an appropriate response!!!!
Mitch

 

[jazzeum]

First off, I'll say that I do not know that much about this case. After seeing Brett's post, I did poke around a little on the web and did see that British lawmakers have previously rejected a call to re-open. There could be varying reasons why these prior attempts to re-open were rejected, such as applying 21st century standards to what were 19th century/early 20th century decisions. Another could be that since it was alleged that they were "just following orders," the British are concerned where this could lead. When you stir history, it can sometimes lead to unanticipated results.

 

[trooper]

First off, I'll say that I do not know that much about this case. After seeing Brett's post, I did poke around a little on the web and did see that British lawmakers have previously rejected a call to re-open. There could be varying reasons why these prior attempts to re-open were rejected, such as applying 21st century standards to what were 19th century/early 20th century decisions. Another could be that since it was alleged that they were "just following orders," the British are concerned where this could lead. When you stir history, it can sometimes lead to unanticipated results.

I agree with the above, all concerned with the case are long dead so it is only the written record that is available for study and judging circumstances by that alone cannot lead to any definitive conclusion. Trooper

 

[Rob]

I'm open minded about this. I don't know all the facts of the case but I know one thing. Many of the 300 odd Soldiers who were executed during WW1 quite simply DID NOT DESERVE TO DIE. The fact that it was a long time ago in a different time does not excuse everything done to these young men. There is no doubt some did deserve it and commited crimes such as murder for which they would have been executed for in civilian live. However there is a world of diff between a murder and a man who after some fighting in the Trenches finds himself out of ammo and being chased down by the enemy. He pauses and jams his now useless rifle across the Trench in an attempt to slow the enemy. For this act he was arrested and executed. I'm sorry but the fact it was a long while ago does not wash, and it will not wash away the grief of his family or the stigma attached to his family for generations to come. I think all these cases should be investigated on an individual basis and acted on accordingly. A blanket pardon is unrealistic and unjust, but justice must be done for those who were wrongly executed , their descendants deserve no less.

The British Army was also guilty of enlisting boys who were below enlistment age, this has to be taken into account when looking at these cases, its not about blaming anyone now, its just about righting a wrong and doing the right thing by those young men who went out there and gave up their lives for us.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

While I agree with you it must cause some concern to some of the families we are going to open a can of worms here that will become a behemoth.

The cost alone should be a factor. Who pays and, what would it achieve if, after reading and reviewing the evidence the decision is upheld?? These calls for leniancy have no legal standing IMO and are emotive based which, is an unecessary quality in a court of law. There is also the fact that one cannot give a fair hearing to both sides due to the lack of witnesses i.e. none in most of these cases so, its a paper review with modern interpretations being adopted to a different era's values and laws of which, I am wholly against, as you know from the historical conversations on here. It may sound harsh but, we are trying to re-write history to suit our moral sensitivities of the day and, not really bring any sort of justice to events that were taken in immensly difficult circumstances and, in different socio economic, political and military times.

It may seem unfair but, I am the opinion that its not for the law to involve themselves with these cases. What was accepted in military circles at one time should not be seen as wrong because its now unfashionable or, seen as illegal now or unfair. I opened with where do we draw the line if such cases are allowed to be heard and, it still stands?

I remember my uncle telling me when he was training to be a commando that they were doing an assault course where they had to go through a dirty watered tunnel with full kit and, one of the recruits was trapped by his backpack and drown. They did not stop the exercise and they had to pass the dead soldier before they eventually removed him. Now, that would not happen today but, should we go back and bring charges against the commander or, the drill instructers? I would hope not.
Mitch

I'm open minded about this. I don't know all the facts of the case but I know one thing. Many of the 300 odd Soldiers who were executed during WW1 quite simply DID NOT DESERVE TO DIE. The fact that it was a long time ago in a different time does not excuse everything done to these young men. There is no doubt some did deserve it and commited crimes such as murder for which they would have been executed for in civilian live. However there is a world of diff between a murder and a man who after some fighting in the Trenches finds himself out of ammo and being chased down by the enemy. He pauses and jams his now useless rifle across the Trench in an attempt to slow the enemy. For this act he was arrested and executed. I'm sorry but the fact it was a long while ago does not wash, and it will not wash away the grief of his family or the stigma attached to his family for generations to come. I think all these cases should be investigated on an individual basis and acted on accordingly. A blanket pardon is unrealistic and unjust, but justice must be done for those who were wrongly executed , their descendants deserve no less.

The British Army was also guilty of enlisting boys who were below enlistment age, this has to be taken into account when looking at these cases, its not about blaming anyone now, its just about righting a wrong and doing the right thing by those young men who went out there and gave up their lives for us.

Rob

 

[Rob]

Mitch,

Whilst I see where you are coming from there are a couple of points. First, let the government pay mate, god knows they spend enough money on god knows what, surely we are not saying we can afford the Olympics but not to seek justice for our young men who went out their and gave their all? Also I do not think this is about fashion or our moral sensitivities , this is about the fact that government (past and present) KNOW what happened in some cases was wrong and that is why they have announced a pardon is in the works. Mitch, it matters less that these cases might not stand up in court because of lack of witnesses or evidence but more that this country has on the fast approaching eve of 100th Anniversay of that terrible conflict the stones to stand up and say 'we did them wrong, their shame is erased for ever' . Who cares what it will cost or who it upsets , we have to do the right thing. I wasn't a huge fan of Gordon Brown but I applauded him when he announced this. As I said earlier , I would not want any soldier for instance executed for rape and murder or robbery and murder to be pardoned, but that cannot compare to a boy Soldier who should not have been in the British Army at all, scared ****less in a shell hole and executed for it. Its not on mate. Again its not about blame at all , its about justice.

Re the example you gave re the Commando, its difficult comparing because the man in command and his family would not be stained with the stigma like that of a boy Soldier shot by firing squad for cowardice.

There may be many who are uneasy at having these men pardoned because it may look bad on some units and some individuals , but they are going to have to deal as it looks like its going to happen very soon. I think the majority believe its the right thing to do and at the perfect time to do it , this terrible episode in British Military History can be put to bed once and for all as we commemorate the forthcoming anniversary.

Rob

Rob...

While I agree with you it must cause some concern to some of the families we are going to open a can of worms here that will become a behemoth.

The cost alone should be a factor. Who pays and, what would it achieve if, after reading and reviewing the evidence the decision is upheld?? These calls for leniancy have no legal standing IMO and are emotive based which, is an unecessary quality in a court of law. There is also the fact that one cannot give a fair hearing to both sides due to the lack of witnesses i.e. none in most of these cases so, its a paper review with modern interpretations being adopted to a different era's values and laws of which, I am wholly against, as you know from the historical conversations on here. It may sound harsh but, we are trying to re-write history to suit our moral sensitivities of the day and, not really bring any sort of justice to events that were taken in immensly difficult circumstances and, in different socio economic, political and military times.

It may seem unfair but, I am the opinion that its not for the law to involve themselves with these cases. What was accepted in military circles at one time should not be seen as wrong because its now unfashionable or, seen as illegal now or unfair. I opened with where do we draw the line if such cases are allowed to be heard?

I remember my uncle telling me when he was training to be a commando that they were doing an assault course where they had to go through a dirty watered tunnel with full kit and, one of the recruits was trapped by his backpack and drown. They did not stop the exercise and they had to pass the dead soldier before they eventually removed him. Now, that would not happen today but, should we go back and bring charges against the commander or, the drill instructers? I would hope not.

Mitch

 

[damian]

They shot prisoners of war who had surrendered.
Pretty clear cut as far as most people see it.
The defense that others were doing it too does not make it right.
Sure they were made examples of but that does not mean they should be pardoned.
Anyway the British record as a whole during the Boer War was pretty shameful all round.

 

[Rob]

Mitch, it appears we've been discussing a very moot point , looks like all three hundred were pardoned in 2006! Had no idea it had been done yet!{eek3} They'll be telling me WW2 is over next!:wink2:

Rob

I'm open minded about this. I don't know all the facts of the case but I know one thing. Many of the 300 odd Soldiers who were executed during WW1 quite simply DID NOT DESERVE TO DIE. The fact that it was a long time ago in a different time does not excuse everything done to these young men. There is no doubt some did deserve it and commited crimes such as murder for which they would have been executed for in civilian live. However there is a world of diff between a murder and a man who after some fighting in the Trenches finds himself out of ammo and being chased down by the enemy. He pauses and jams his now useless rifle across the Trench in an attempt to slow the enemy. For this act he was arrested and executed. I'm sorry but the fact it was a long while ago does not wash, and it will not wash away the grief of his family or the stigma attached to his family for generations to come. I think all these cases should be investigated on an individual basis and acted on accordingly. A blanket pardon is unrealistic and unjust, but justice must be done for those who were wrongly executed , their descendants deserve no less.

The British Army was also guilty of enlisting boys who were below enlistment age, this has to be taken into account when looking at these cases, its not about blaming anyone now, its just about righting a wrong and doing the right thing by those young men who went out there and gave up their lives for us.

Rob

Rob...

While I agree with you it must cause some concern to some of the families we are going to open a can of worms here that will become a behemoth.

The cost alone should be a factor. Who pays and, what would it achieve if, after reading and reviewing the evidence the decision is upheld?? These calls for leniancy have no legal standing IMO and are emotive based which, is an unecessary quality in a court of law. There is also the fact that one cannot give a fair hearing to both sides due to the lack of witnesses i.e. none in most of these cases so, its a paper review with modern interpretations being adopted to a different era's values and laws of which, I am wholly against, as you know from the historical conversations on here. It may sound harsh but, we are trying to re-write history to suit our moral sensitivities of the day and, not really bring any sort of justice to events that were taken in immensly difficult circumstances and, in different socio economic, political and military times.

It may seem unfair but, I am the opinion that its not for the law to involve themselves with these cases. What was accepted in military circles at one time should not be seen as wrong because its now unfashionable or, seen as illegal now or unfair. I opened with where do we draw the line if such cases are allowed to be heard and, it still stands?

I remember my uncle telling me when he was training to be a commando that they were doing an assault course where they had to go through a dirty watered tunnel with full kit and, one of the recruits was trapped by his backpack and drown. They did not stop the exercise and they had to pass the dead soldier before they eventually removed him. Now, that would not happen today but, should we go back and bring charges against the commander or, the drill instructers? I would hope not.
Mitch

Mitch,

Whilst I see where you are coming from there are a couple of points. First, let the government pay mate, god knows they spend enough money on god knows what, surely we are not saying we can afford the Olympics but not to seek justice for our young men who went out their and gave their all? Also I do not think this is about fashion or our moral sensitivities , this is about the fact that government (past and present) KNOW what happened in some cases was wrong and that is why they have announced a pardon is in the works. Mitch, it matters less that these cases might not stand up in court because of lack of witnesses or evidence but more that this country has on the fast approaching eve of 100th Anniversay of that terrible conflict the stones to stand up and say 'we did them wrong, their shame is erased for ever' . Who cares what it will cost or who it upsets , we have to do the right thing. I wasn't a huge fan of Gordon Brown but I applauded him when he announced this. As I said earlier , I would not want any soldier for instance executed for rape and murder or robbery and murder to be pardoned, but that cannot compare to a boy Soldier who should not have been in the British Army at all, scared ****less in a shell hole and executed for it. Its not on mate. Again its not about blame at all , its about justice.

Re the example you gave re the Commando, its difficult comparing because the man in command and his family would not be stained with the stigma like that of a boy Soldier shot by firing squad for cowardice.

There may be many who are uneasy at having these men pardoned because it may look bad on some units and some individuals , but they are going to have to deal as it looks like its going to happen very soon. I think the majority believe its the right thing to do and at the perfect time to do it , this terrible episode in British Military History can be put to bed once and for all as we commemorate the forthcoming anniversary.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

I had no idea about that happening also. Never heard a thing so, its very surprising that slipped by. My comments still stand about the case Brett raised as these guys actually did what they were accused off regardless of obeying orders.

WWII was that the conflict that ended in 1954???
Mitch

 

[Louis Badolato]

Mitch, it appears we've been discussing a very moot point , looks like all three hundred were pardoned in 2006! Had no idea it had been done yet!{eek3} They'll be telling me WW2 is over next!:wink2:

Rob

I'm glad to hear it Rob, because I was with you 100% In WWI men were executed for battle fatigue on charges of cowardice in the face of the enemy. I am sorry, but if a teenager shoved into a trench goes nuts after being shelled non-stop for hours upon hours and days upon days, the young soldier has not committed a crime, or acted cowardly, he has just have been pushed beyond the breaking point.

 

[Mitch]

He did in the era we are talking off and, thats the whole point. We, or some, sit in judgment of others for taking actions based totally on the basis of hindsight and modern expectations and experience.

I have seen officers etc hammered for taking decisions and their reputations tarnished because we decide to sit in judgment of these actions which, we can not comprehend or, fail to even try.

It also pre-supposes that all of these soldiers were not cowards in that era's standing and were shell shocked or, did nothing that was seen as wrong in that historical time frame. how do we, today, know that absolutly? we don't but, we place modern thinking retrospectively and try to intervene in historical events.

For me, its a strange way to address history and, as I asked where do we stop why not pardon every soldier in every conflict who may have done something that was wrong at that time but, can now be covered by some medical or technological or legal advance
Mitch

I'm glad to hear it Rob, because I was with you 100% In WWI men were executed for battle fatigue on charges of cowardice in the face of the enemy. I am sorry, but if a teenager shoved into a trench goes nuts after being shelled non-stop for hours upon hours and days upon days, the young soldier has not committed a crime, or acted cowardly, he has just have been pushed beyond the breaking point.

 

[Rob]

I had no idea about that happening also. Never heard a thing so, its very surprising that slipped by. My comments still stand about the case Brett raised as these guys actually did what they were accused off regardless of obeying orders.

WWII was that the conflict that ended in 1954???
Mitch[/QUOTE]

Mitch, I remember the defence sec announcing this in the commons but thought it a couple of years
ago but was a few years off! Time seems to fly these days.

I'm glad to hear it Rob, because I was with you 100% In WWI men were executed for battle fatigue on charges of cowardice in the face of the enemy. I am sorry, but if a teenager shoved into a trench goes nuts after being shelled non-stop for hours upon hours and days upon days, the young soldier has not committed a crime, or acted cowardly, he has just have been p
ushed beyond the breaking point.

Quite right Louis. I remember attending a lecture about the subject at the National Army museum.
The speaker quoted one case in which one guy had been found guilty of murder but was then set freeon parole.He went straight out and shot dead a Military Policeman! It would be hard to argue this
mans case but it cannot be compared to the type of case you mention. The defence secretary at the
time said that whilst he didn't want to second guess officers of the day it was clear great Injustices
had been done. We often mock or ridicule our politicians but I applaud them when they are big
enough to do what they know should be done.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

They shot prisoners of war who had surrendered.
Pretty clear cut as far as most people see it.
The defense that others were doing it too does not make it right.
Sure they were made examples of but that does not mean they should be pardoned.
Anyway the British record as a whole during the Boer War was pretty shameful all round.

That is what may cause the concern and why I said when you start stirring history, you don't know where it may lead.

 

[Rob]

Apologies for paragraphs all over the place, am using iPhone tonight and something's not right
with it!

Rob

 

[trooper]

Agree with all the comments re WW1 but the Morant case was totally different. They shot prisoners who had surrenderd and a German missionary they "suspected" of having communication with the Boer commandos. Their defence was of obeying orders, a defence that was not accepted when offered by Nazis during the War Trials at Nuremberg. It could therefore be argued that if that defence was now accepted there would then be a precedent for pardoning people like Eichman. Not a good idea, in my humble opinion. It is history, it happened, let it lie. Trooper

 

[Simpson & his donkey.]

The problem here is that they should of been held and judged by a Australian court. They were Australians fighting another British mess and that always will be the problem. They shot boers and fought the war as boers did. Yes they did what was not the right thing to do in battle but what is right and what is wrong in the heat of battle. I may be abit harsh but killing the emeny is the way to win a war. They paid for what they did . The Australian goverment passed a law after that no Australian soldiers can be judged by any other country but Australia. So I would like to see the British court case thrown out and a new court case opened by a Australian court and lets see what happens then. Simmo.

 

[Rob]

The problem here is that they should of been held and judged by a Australian court. They were Australians fighting another British mess and that always will be the problem. They shot boers and fought the war as boers did. Yes they did what was not the right thing to do in battle but what is right and what is wrong in the heat of battle. I may be abit harsh but killing the emeny is the way to win a war. They paid for what they did . The Australian goverment passed a law after that no Australian soldiers can be judged by any other country but Australia. So I would like to see the British court case thrown out and a new court case opened by a Australian court and lets see what happens then. Simmo.

Nah! Let it stand! British justice is beyond criticism ! {eek3}{eek3}{eek3}:wink2:^&grin

Joke!!{sm4}

Rob

 

[trooper]

The problem here is that they should of been held and judged by a Australian court. They were Australians fighting another British mess and that always will be the problem. They shot boers and fought the war as boers did. Yes they did what was not the right thing to do in battle but what is right and what is wrong in the heat of battle. I may be abit harsh but killing the emeny is the way to win a war. They paid for what they did . The Australian goverment passed a law after that no Australian soldiers can be judged by any other country but Australia. So I would like to see the British court case thrown out and a new court case opened by a Australian court and lets see what happens then. Simmo.

They had volunteered to serve in the Bushveld Carbiniers, a British unit under British control, so it is reasonable that they should be tried by a British Court Martial. During the Second World War many troops from overseas, including Americans serving with the RAF were subject to British law and although Australia passed the law quoted above it did not apply at the time of the trial. We all know that an Australian court will exonerate them but should we tinker about with history? Will it serve any useful purpose after this length of time?Trooper

 

[damian]

ABout the WWI executions I think the issue has been clouded by modern sentiment. There is a great book on this topic called Blindfolded and alone.
I think about 300 men were executed during the war. Not a lot compared to the numbers who served. My understanding is that the media created image of a bunch of public school toffs having some frightened teenager shot for refusing to go over the top is not a correct one. baring a few most of those executed were pretty much died in the wool offenders some of whom had committed serious crimes like rape and murder. The death sentence was not handed down very often and was often revoked.
Each case should be taken on its merits and not second guessed through rose tinted glasses.