War Crimes and the Rule of Law: A Reply
.jpg)
James Unkles has requested a right of reply to points made about the 'Breaker' Morant case by Major General the Honourable Justice Paul Brereton, AM, RFD during his address to our Society on 4 June 2022:
In a
civilised society, the principle of natural justice must rule.
This principle is as relevant today as it was
in 1902.
Justice Brereton’s presentation of the history
of Australian war crimes and the implications of Australian and international
law is a welcome addition to study of this controversial subject from
Australia’s involvement in the Anglo-Boer War to Vietnam. (1)
His analysis focused on facts concerning the
Anglo-Boer War, British military units and the service of Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton with
the Bushveldt Carabineers and their subsequent trial for shooting prisoners.
Justice Brereton concluded that these men did not suffer a substantial
miscarriage of justice under the law of 1902.
However, there are aspects of Justice
Brereton’s presentation involving the trial and sentencing of Morant, Handcock
and Witton that are disputed.
An independent assessment of the evidence is
warranted so justice can be served.
Comment
This matter remains controversial 120 years
after Morant and Handcock were executed and Witton sentenced to life
imprisonment for summarily executing Boers in 1901. The subject has attracted
numerous books, films, documentaries and debate in the Australian Parliament,
and protests from the descendants of these men.
The guilt or innocence of the men remains
contentious. Were they tried and sentenced strictly in accordance with the law
of 1902 or were they scapegoated to
pacify the Boer leadership at a time peace negotiations were taking place to end
a brutal war between the might of the British Empire and a dogged, resistant
and determined enemy? The Boers were not beaten into submission by a superior
military force and a peace treaty was signed in May 1902.
While Justice Brereton is entitled to his view
of the legal issues and his conclusion that the men were tried and sentenced
according to law, there are compelling opposing views from senior counsel,
former judicial officers and community leaders who have urged that the case be
reviewed by independent inquiry.
Despite Justice Brereton’s opinion, it is
important that the case argued by the descendants is understood and respected.
Justice Brereton’s claim that their pursuit of a review is disrespectful to the victims and families of the Boers
who were executed, and to Christie, Brown
and Cochrane, is rejected.
Substantial
Miscarriage of Justice:
Evidence
of Orders to Shoot Prisoners
· There is evidence that orders
existed. A reliable source is George Witton’s book published in 1907, Scapegoats of the Empire: The true story of
Breaker Morant’s Bushveldt Carbineers (2). He provides a firsthand account of the circumstances of the
shootings and the trials that followed. Witton quoted from directly from trial
transcripts which he sourced from the British War office during his
incarceration;
· The British Times Reuter’s
correspondent who attended the trials provided an account of the proceedings
(3). The news transcript included a record of evidence from Morant, Witton and
others that orders to take no prisoners were given British officers, including
Morant’s superior Captain Hunt;
· Compelling evidence of orders was
identified in a legal opinion of Colonel. J. St Clair, Deputy Judge Advocate
and former Barrister. His report dated 22 November 1901 was addressed to Major
General Kelly, Adjutant General. The opinion was written by St Clair after he
had reviewed the report of the investigation conducted in November 1901. What
is interesting in the legal opinion is his analysis:
‘The idea that no prisoners
were to be taken in the Spelonken appears to have been started by the late
Captain Hunt and after his death continued by orders given personally by
Captain Taylor.’ (4)
Denial of Appeal − Redress of
Wrongs & Common law Appeal
· In addition to a right of
judicial appeal through a common law writ, the officers also had the right to
redress a wrong in accordance with the Army Act. Section 42 stated that
a military member could redress a wrong of his commanding officer and may
complain to the Commander-In-Chief ‘in
order to obtain justice’, and the Commander-In-Chief ‘is hereby required to examine into such complaint and through a
Secretary of State make his report to Her Majesty in order to receive
directions of Her Majesty’ (5).
· The Manual of Military Law
explained the redress process for both officers and soldiers and stated: ‘The report to Her Majesty is to be made
through the Secretary of State, the constitutional adviser to Her Majesty’ (6).
· In 1902, the right of an officer
or soldier to redress a perceived wrong was, and still is, a right of any
uniformed member of the military. This would have been known to Lord Kitchener
and his legal advisers. Noting that the sentences were carried out within 18
hours of the convictions and sentences being announced, the accused were denied
the opportunity to consider all
avenues of review including redress action. The haste to proceed to execution
was disgraceful and an insult to the integrity of the complaint system.
Descendants
In 2016,
descendants of the men signed a letter to Julie Bishop MP. They pleaded for
resolution through an independent inquiry (7);
‘The treatment of these men has caused
us much grief and shame. Over the decades our families have had to try and deal
with the guilt of the way these men were treated. Our collective grieving has
been in secret, fearful that we would be shamed for the events all those years
ago. Pardons would remove the stigma from the families and provide relief after
114 years of stress and anxiety. Further, pardons will restore the memory of
these men and recognise above all a respect of the rule of law and due process,
principles that existed in 1901 and remain central to our democratic traditions
in the present’.
Compelling Assessments
The opinions of senior legal counsel, former judicial officers and community leaders, including current and former Government MPs are significant and stand in contrast to the dissenting opinions. Their chorus is that this case must be reviewed independently of Government.
To critics,
one asks why would such eminent individuals, who have had the opportunity to
review evidence, publish their assessments and urge the Australian
Government/Parliament to conduct an independent review.
Tim Fischer, former Deputy Prime Minister (extract of interview 2013): ‘Because two great wrongs were done to both Breaker Morant and Peter Handcock – absolute wrongs – and also a wrong towards George Witton. And this goes to the moral values and fabric of a nation. We know these wrongs were done, do we do nothing about it, or do we in fact seek to at least ... can’t reinstate life, correct the formal record by one method or another here or in Great Britain.’
Julia Irwin MP, Chair House of Representatives Petitions Committee, 2009: ‘there appears to be some level of agreement across these two camps that the accused men had little opportunity to prepare a defence against the charges. This petition argues that there are indeed ‘questions and concerns’ over ‘fairness, legal process and sentencing’ at the court martial, and it is on these grounds, the petition suggests, that the cases against Morant, Handcock and Witton should be reviewed’. (8)
Sir Laurence Street, AC, KCMG, KStJ, QC, former Chief Justice NSW (extract of legal opinion 2013): ‘I think the British government should intervene and appoint an enquiry, the outcome of which I’m sure would be that the conviction should not be allowed to stand and would quash the convictions’. This is an appalling affront to any general notions of justice, and an appalling injustice to the remaining living man. This was an exercise of the administration of criminal justice which sadly miscarried. No judge with any ownership of the criminal justice system in his jurisdiction, or her jurisdiction, could tolerate a ... something of this sort going unremedied. This is crying out for judicial intervention.’
Alexander Street SC, Judge Federal Circuit Court: Judge Street appeared at the Moot court in 2013 and successfully argued that on the evidence the men had been denied procedural fairness in their trials, and the errors of law according to military law of 1902 were fatal to the administration of justice. Judge Street remains committed to having this case reviewed and believes Defence Inquiry is appropriate and lawful.
David Denton QC, (extract of legal opinion 2013): ‘In my ultimate opinion, based upon the foregoing, there are good grounds for the Australian Government itself to convene a public enquiry into the circumstances affecting the convening, arraigning and conduct of the court martial of the Australian military veterans and to the subsequent conduct of the military authorities having authority over the Australian military veterans in their handling of the rights of the prisoners once they were found guilty of certain offences which carried a death penalty. In my opinion the issues raised by descendants of Morant, Handcock and Witton should be assessed with the assistance of a public inquiry. A public inquiry will also assist in finishing what the House of Representatives Petitions Committee considered in March 2010 and described as a compelling and strong case for pardons.
Alex Hawke MP, former Minister (Hansard 15 March 2010 & 27 February 2012): ‘I would support an inquiry. I would support an inquiry into this matter, because there are outstanding issues to be resolved. I think it’s so important to Australia’s future that we have our own legends, our own myths, our own history, and that we have it thoroughly discussed, explored and dealt with, and it’s so important not just for now but for future generations’. The executions were conducted with extreme haste and without appeal, I am convinced that some form of redress is necessary in this matter and could provide the current generations with some relief after decades of controversy. The passing of time does not diminish any injustice’. There is in my view serious and compelling evidence that some form of redress should be given all these years later to those men executed by the British. It is the case that the executions were conducted with extreme haste and without appeal.’
Alex Hawke MP, also a member of the Committee addressed the House of Representatives on 15 March, ‘the fact that the trial was not conducted properly means there is an avenue for redress of those convictions. There is in my view serious and compelling evidence that some form of redress should be given all these years later to those men executed by the British.’
Greg Hunt MP, former Minister: ‘Well my view is that any Australian government at any time should seek final resolution, and if we are elected then I will continue to work within the parliament to see that outcome. Well I think the concern is that two Australians were executed in a summary fashion without justice. Now none of this excuses what was clearly a heinous act in relation to the prisoners under care, but it is time, in my judgment, for a proper independent inquiry. That may not change the decision of the court, it may reverse the decision, or it may say that there were mitigating circumstances that these were actions taken under orders. But there was no justice, there was a summary execution after a sham trial and there deserves to be a full trial. This will not ever excuse their actions, but similarly it is clear that the actions of the colonial administration of those who were running the Boer conflict were equally reprehensible. And if there is a stain on the historic record we need to address it.’
Gerry Nash QC, (analysis and written legal opinion of 14 October 2013): ‘Clearly, in my opinion, the executions were unlawful and motivated otherwise than by a concern for justice. The descendants and relatives of the executed men have legitimate grounds for seeking a review. ‘The Australian Government could conduct its own low key judicial inquiry, to flesh out, so far as is possible, the true facts and then to present to the British Government the findings of that inquiry with a request that the British Government formally pardon each of Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton.’
Geoffrey Robertson, AO, QC, (extract of legal opinion 2013): ‘They were treated monstrously. The case of Morant and Hancock, the two men who were executed, is a disgrace. Certainly by today's standards they were not given any of the human rights that international treaties require men facing the death penalty to be given. But even by the standards of 1902 they were treated improperly, unlawfully’.
In 2013, Robert
McClelland, former Attorney General stated, ‘I think there is cause for
such an inquiry, an independent inquiry as recommended by Geoffrey Robertson.
I’ve focused in particular on those flaws in the process. We’re not seeking to
be judgmental on the British government as it exists today or the British
people as they exist today, but the facts of the matter are there were
fundamental flaws in the criminal process that resulted in these people being
executed, and when that injustice occurs I think it needs to be revisited, and
certainly it is a matter of public interest that that occur.’
Mr George Christensen, former Member of Parliament is
supportive of an independent inquiry. He addressed the Parliament’s Federation Chamber on 2 December 2021. His advocacy to Parliament is compelling:
‘We can still afford Breaker Morant, Peter Handcock and George
Witton the legal processes they deserved at that time. That's why I'm calling
on the government to initiate an independent review into those allegations, the
evidence, the trial and the legal processes to determine whether justice was
properly served and whether those three Australian soldiers really were just
scapegoats. I know many people have spoken about a pardon, and descendants of
these men would be extremely happy to have their ancestors exonerated. At the
very least we should give them the courtesy of proper due process and properly
investigate the circumstances that led to the execution of Morant and Handcock.
If an independent review finds grounds for an exoneration, then a pardon from
the Australia then
a pardon from the Australian government for those men who served their country
in the Boer War would be the appropriate course of action.’ (9)
Mr Christensen’s plea to Darren Chester MP, the then Minister for Veteran Affairs, to
convene an inquiry:
‘I write to support the
call of the descendants of these men for an independent inquiry and assessment
noting the work of Mr James Unkles who has requested “an independent inquiry …
to bring a conclusion on the facts and matters in dispute and provide reassurance
to Commonwealth countries that democratic traditions and the rule of law are
paramount in reviewing cases in which there is credible evidence of a
miscarriage of justice. This is not a case
of seeking pardons, but merely an assessment of the evidence, in the manner
similar to that carried out by the New Zealand Government in 2000 in relation
to the execution of five WWI soldiers. Please
also note the numerous expressions of support about these cases from eminent
community leaders and the legal fraternity.’ (10)
Isaac
Isaacs, (KC, MP, eventual GG and Chief Justice of the High Court) Legal Counsel
for Lt Witton
The material contained in two documents
prepared by Isaacs in 1902, one legal opinion and a petition to the Crown on
behalf of Witton, are relevant to the issue of superior orders and
recommendations for mercy. Although the Isaacs documents were prepared on
account of his client, the matters discussed are pertinent to all three men.
(11)
- Witton’s sentence was ‘disproportionate to any possible blame
attachable to him’;
- ‘The
great weight of testimony makes it difficult to see where he is culpable
at all’;
- Isaacs expressed the issue of obedience to
orders as, ‘If Captain Hunt informed
his subordinate that Colonel Hamilton had given such orders and directly
required obedience to them, what could this Lieutenants do?’
- ‘Thus
there was a large body of uncontradicted evidence that Hunt had in fact
given the orders to take no prisoners and that he had reprimanded officers
for transgressing those orders’
- Isaacs further argued, ‘immersed in services of continuous activity and serious
pressure, engaged with the enemy under circumstances that lent some colour
to the likelihood of such orders, having no reason for disbelieving what
he was told and led by men of masterful mind and strong personal force,
under the influence as Lord Kitchener himself says, of Morant and
Handcock, what was this young officer to do?’
- Isaacs quoted Lieutenant Colonel Pratt’s Handbook of Military Law on the principle of
obedience to lawful commands,
and Clode’s Military Law and Martial Law 1874, p56;
- Isaacs reasoned, ‘Thus there was a large body of uncontradicted evidence that Hunt
had in fact given the orders to take no prisoners and that he had
reprimanded officers for transgressing those orders’;
- Isaacs referred to ‘the belief entertained that such orders had in fact been lawfully issued’;
- He also argued, ‘The defence of obedience to orders and the view that Lieutenant
Witton honestly and reasonably believed in the existence of lawful orders
were, as your Majesty petitioners believe, materially corroborated and
supported by evidence in other cases before the same court martial, that
other corps believed the same thing and acted accordingly’. Isaacs
cited Lieutenant Hannam and Sergeant Waller-Ashton, who presented evidence
of an order ‘to take no prisoners’, and
of ‘Hannam having been reprimanded
by Colonel Cradock for taking prisoners.’ Witton drew conclusions
accordingly. ‘Your Majesty’s
petitioners humbly submit that such reprimand and orders could only have but
one meaning and that they afford strong reason for not imputing criminal
conduct to Lieutenant Witton.’
- Isaacs also argued, ‘no doubt can ever have existed that Captain Hunt had given the
orders referred to’;
- Isaacs also cited a procedural error in the composition of court that tried Witton. Isaacs stated, ‘humbly beseech your Majesty to consider whether Lieutenant Witton has not suffered some disadvantage in not having as one member at least of the court martial an officer of an irregular corps in accordance with the rules of procedure.’
House of Representatives Motion. A motion
tabled in the House of Representatives by Scott Buchholz MP on 12 February 2018 contained an
expression of sincere regret and apology to the descendants for the manner in
which Morant, Handcock and Witton were treated. It stated (12):
‘sincere
regret that Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were denied procedural fairness
contrary to law and acknowledges that this had cruel and unjust consequences;
and
sympathy to
the descendants of these men as they were not tried and sentenced in accordance
with the law of 1902.
Scott Buchholz’s address to the House is
compelling:
‘Lieutenants Morant and Handcock were the first and last Australians executed for war crimes, on 27 February 1902. The process used to try these men was fundamentally flawed. They were not afforded the rights of an accused person facing serious criminal charges enshrined in military law in 1902. Today, I recognise the cruel and unjust consequences and express my deepest sympathy to the descendants.’
Victorian
Supreme Court
In 2013, the Morant matter
was reviewed by a moot court hearing in the Victorian Supreme Court. The
proceedings involved senior legal counsel, (Sandy Street RFD SC and Gerry Nash
QC) and two counsel Andrew Kirkham AO, RFD, QC and Gary Hevey RFD who presided
as judges. Following a hearing that involved prosecution and defence counsel, a
written decision concluded that Morant, Handcock and Witton were not tried and
sentenced according to law and suffered a substantial injustice. The decision
of the Court:
· There was evidence of a breach of natural
justice and procedural fairness in the trial and sentencing of these men;
· The irregularities were so significant that
they did not have fair trials;
· Pursuant to the MML (Manual of Military Law) the
men were denied an opportunity to prepare a defence before trial, to access
legal advice and contact with the Australian government and their families;
· Procedural rules of the MML were breached
during the Inquiry and the isolation of the men in solitary confinement
prejudiced their right to access legal advice and arrange for the defence
witnesses;
· The men were denied their right to state a redress of grievance and file a petition for mercy with the Crown.
Alexander Street SC who appeared in the Moot court proceedings provided a written brief. He asserted:
· UK Military Law recognised reprisal orders as
lawful;
· Hague
Regulations of 1899 did not expressly proscribe reprisal orders
against prisoners;
· Evidence existed that the execution of Boer
prisoners was pursuant to lawful orders emanating from Lord Kitchener and these
men had a lawful defence;
· Referred to the Manual of Military Law, 4th Ed 1899, on
page 292 paragraph 33: ‘An unjust
execution of prisoners by the enemy may be followed by the execution of an
equal number of prisoners by their opponents.’
· ‘The men
suffered a fundamental denial of procedural fairness or natural justice that
occurred, in the Court of Inquiry in which Breaker Morant was squarely denied
his rights of participation under Reg 124 of the Manual of Military Law and
clearly denied the opportunity to respond to the adverse finding upon his
character that must have been made given the consequential Court Martial. The
tainting of the witnesses called at the Court Martial by that unfair Court of
Inquiry was unable to be properly explored because the representative for all
of the accused, MAJ J F Thomas, arrived the day before the trial commenced with
the limited experience of being a solicitor from Tenterfield and the request
for adjournment denied. The incarceration of Breaker Morant in the three months
leading up to his trial and overlapping the Court of Inquiry, completely deprived
him and the other accused of the opportunity of properly preparing his defence
or the benefit of any input from the Australian Government.’
· ‘An
essential requirement of the sentencing process in accordance with the Manual
of Military Law had not been complied with in the form of sending of the whole
of the proceedings to London for confirmation. Moreover, the limited reporting
of the matter by Lord Kitchener utterly failed to convey the existence of a
recommendation for leniency by the Court Martial.’ This amounted to Lord
Kitchener concealing the recommendations for leniency.
Gerry
Nash QC:
Reviewed the evidence at
the Moot Court hearing and concluded (13):
· ‘I became
convinced that they, and Lieutenant Witton, although almost certainly guilty,
did not receive a fair trial, and they were probably executed unlawfully’;
· ‘Clearly, in
my opinion, the executions were unlawful and motivated otherwise than by a
concern for justice. The descendants and relatives of the executed men have
legitimate grounds for seeking a review of the circumstances in which those men
were killed (unlawfully in my view) by a British firing squad’;
· ‘In my
opinion the sentences imposed by the Court Martial were imposed by a body which
had no jurisdiction to conduct the Court Martial and the sentences were imposed
in a form not permitted by the Manual
of Military Law’.
· ‘In my view
none of these matters constituted a mere irregularity. The failure of natural
justice was not a minor failure. It involves a total failure to accord
procedural fairness or to comply with the requirements of the Manual of Military Law’.
· Procedural
Rules of Manual of Military Law
1899 were breached, Rule 124, Rule 20(B) Rule 13, 89 & 48 had been breached;
· The
failure to extend the re commendation for mercy to Morant and Handcock as per
para 88 of the MML was unjust and could have been reviewed in a plea for mercy
to the Crown but this opportunity was illegally denied to these men and their
advocate Major Thomas.’
What do the descendants want?
An independent
inquiry free of bias, to assess the evidence that does exist and conclude
whether or not these men were investigated, tried and sentenced according to the
law of 1902.
Precedent for Inquiry - World War 1 Soldiers
Over 300 soldiers from
Commonwealth countries who were executed by the British during World War 1 were
pardoned in 2002 for offences, including cowardice and desertion. Five New
Zealanders were executed. (14)
A New Zealand Government inquiry identified
exceptional circumstances surrounding the execution of the men. The conclusion
of the inquiry accepted that the men had suffered an injustice and should be
pardoned. The Government took steps to restore the memory of the
soldiers.
Legislation was used to pardon soldiers from Canada, Ireland and Great
Britain. Pardons removed so far as practicable the dishonour that the execution
of those five soldiers brought to those soldiers and their families. (15)
Although the case of
Morant, Handcock and Witton differs in fact to the cases of the World War 1
soldiers, the principle remains the same, that a pardon can be used to remove a
stigma associated with military service. Pardons in the case of Morant,
Handcock and Witton will recognise that they served the Crown, were otherwise
of good character, believed in good faith that they had to obey the orders of
their British superiors, were subjected to a capital penalty that was excessive
and the recommendations for mercy applicable to Morant and Handcock, but not
disclosed by Lord Kitchener in his report to the War Office, contained strong
mitigation that should have commuted the sentences to imprisonment.
National Interest:
· Concerns former Australian veterans and their descendants;
· The passing of time and the fact that Morant, Handcock and
Witton are deceased does not diminish errors in the administration of justice.
Injustices in times of war are inexcusable and it takes vigilance to right
wrongs, to honour those unfairly treated and to demonstrate respect for the
rule of law. How we respond to this case remains a test of our values and is
vitally important to the descendants of Morant, Handcock and Witton and those
who respect the rule of law and seek justice. In the eyes of Australia and the
community a wrong is never diminished by the passing of time and it is our duty
to put it right;
· The Australian Government of 1902 led by Prime Minister
Edmund Barton vigorously protested the manner in which these men were treated
by the British Military. Protests continued, led by Prime Minister, Alfred
Deakin, Witton's legal counsel, Isaac Isaacs KC MP and Winston Churchill MP
with respect to the imprisonment of Lieutenant George Witton. He was released
from prison in 1904. In 2022, our Government should seek an outcome to satisfy
the concerns of the descendants and all Australians who believe in our values
and the sense of a fair go;
· Taking action in this case reflects Australian values and
ethics enshrined in respect for rule of law and due process.
Why this case matters
- The sacrifice of any Australian
veterans in the past and present should be recognised and respected. If
doubts exist as to the manner in which they were treated by their Command
and Government then this should be examined by an independent authority;
- The descendants of these men seek
review and closure after decades of doubt that their relatives were tried
fairly;
- The case continues to be controversial in Australian history. It
has drawn concerned comments from community leaders, judicial figures and
MPs who reviewed the matter in the House of Representatives Petitions
committee in 2010;
- An independent inquiry would bring a conclusion on the facts and
matters in dispute and provide reassurance to Commonwealth countries that
democratic traditions and the rule of law are paramount when reviewing
cases in which there is credible evidence of a miscarriage of justice.
The sacrifice of any Australian
veterans in the past and present should be recognised and respected. If doubts exist
as to the manner in which they were treated by their Military Command and
Government then this should be examined by an independent authority.
The descendants argue
there is sufficient evidence that asserts there were serious errors in the administration
of justice, a substantial miscarriage of justice.
It is in the interests
of justice that an independent authority makes an assessment and brings this
controversial case to a conclusion.
Conclusion
One must ask why the
resistance to conducting an inquiry in Australia or Britain? It is suggested the
Britain does not wish to re visit the Anglo Boer war. Its history is a dark
episode in British colonialism, concentration camps, scorched earth policy and
decimation of Boer property and farms. The resentment from Boer descendants
resounds to this day. (16)
In Australia apologists
for Britain’s’ conduct of the war remain and they seem determined to block a
review of the Morant matter to protect British sensitivities.
Further, the controversy
surrounding the SAS war crimes investigation also raises political
considerations about an inquiry into the Morant matter that may find these men
suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice and, if so, this could shine a
light on the conduct of proceedings against SAS soldiers and liability of
senior military commanders who prosecuted the war in Afghanistan.
If an inquiry confirms
a miscarriage of justice in the Morant matter then there is a salutary lesson
for our democracy and judicial processes. The case provides an opportunity to
balance the assessment of war crimes with the preservation of and promotion of
the rule of law to ensure the presumption of innocence and the standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt is maintained.
The evidence of denial
of due process is compelling. A case for independent assessment exists.
It is in the interests
of all parties, Government and individuals, including the descendants of the
Boers who were shot to bring this matter to a conclusion.
‘Justice knows no time frame, were these men fairly treated? Were they given a fair trial? Even today those issues are important as a matter of law, as a matter of history, as a matter of respect for their families. Congruent with these values is Australia’s tradition of trial according to due process, the presumption of innocence and that an accused is entitled to a fair and unbiased hearing. With the passing of time, this case has been singled out for particular attention to our commitment to such principles and values.’ (17)
James Unkles CMDR (Rtd)
Advocate for descendants of Morant, Handcock and Witton
Footnotes
(1)
https://militaryhistorynsw.com.au/2279-2/
(2)
Witton, George, Scapegoats of the Empire, the true story of Breaker Morant’s Bushveldt Carbineers,
Angus and Robertson, 1982
(3)
Times newspaper, 17 April 1902
(4)
Colonel J. St Clair, A legal opinion dated 22
November 1901
(5)
Army Act, section 42
(6)
MML pp. 362-363
(7)
Descendants letter to Julie Bishop MP dated 4
October 2016
(8)
J. Irwin, Chair, Petitions Committee House of
Representatives Statement 26 October
2009
(9)
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25177/&sid=0271
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzZ7IRLyD2k&t=5s and http://breakermorant.com/blog/
(10)
G. Christensen MP letter to Darren Chester MP
dated 26 May 2021
(11)
Isaac Isaacs, legal opinion dated 28 August
1902 & Isaac Isaacs, Petition – Lieutenant George Witton
(12) House of
Representatives Hansard 12 Feb 2018, Scott Buchholz
MP, Mike Kelly MP and Michael Danby MP and https://www.scottbuchholz.com.au/?s=breaker+morant
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/25177/&sid=0271
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlQk1B4yNMw&t=6s
(13)
G. Nash QC - legal opinion dated 14 October
2013 p. 31-33
(14)
Pardons for soldiers of the Great War, New
Zealand Government Bill 2000
(15) https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/world-war-one-pardoned-soldiers-be-recognised-awards
(16)
https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/1999_boer_war_army_nation_and_empire_0.pdf
(17) Alexander Street SC submission, moot court, 20 July 2013
The Society's main website is here: www.militaryhistorynsw.com.au
Comments
Post a Comment