Breaker Morant – The Case For Review And A Pardon

“Breaker” Morant was an Englishman who spent his early adulthood in New South Wales. In 1900, he joined the Boer War as a lieutenant in a British unit, the Bushveldt Carbineers. In action, Morant participated in the summary execution of several Boer (Afrikaner) prisoners and the killing of a German missionary. He was court-martialled and executed for murder. Over the past three decades in Australia, various groups have sought a review of the sentence given Morant. Others have argued his execution was justified. Craig Wilcox is an Australian historian, a former fellow at the Menzies Centre for Australian Studies in London, and an honorary Associate of the Centre for Historical Research at the National Museum of Australia. Jim Unkles is a lawyer and legal officer with the Royal Australian Naval Reserves. He is also an advocate for an official pardon for Breaker Morant. On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Craig Wilcox and Jim Unkles addressed The Sydney Institute to debate the issue of Breaker Morant’s execution.

BREAKER MORANT – THE CASE FOR REVIEW AND A PARDON

JIM UNKLES

My work on the case for a posthumous pardon for Lieutenant “Breaker” Morant is  sourced from evidence based research. The evidence I have produced stands on its own, is impartial and not conditioned by emotional leanings or prejudices.

The last time I debated this case with Craig Wilcox was before the House of Representatives on 15 March 2010 when the Petitions Committee held a public inquiry.[1] The outcome of the inquiry was that the case for pardons was described by the Committee as strong and compelling. The debate was characterised by desperate and self-serving assertions by Craig Wilcox and two representatives of the War Memorial who phrased their arguments based on loose research, an absence of independent and credible evidence and emotional overtures to favour their viewpoint.

Whilst I acknowledge Craig’s scholarship on the study of Australia’s involvement in the British/Boer war, his understanding of the arrest of Morant, Handcock, and Witton and their subsequent trial and sentencing, lacks substance and an appreciation of the law of 1902 and the procedures of courts martial. Many assertions that Craig has made are vague, lacking in evidence and contradictory.  His recent admission that evidence of orders to shoot prisoners does exist in the analysis of Judge Advocate, Colonel James St Clair, made in 1901 contradicts his earlier assertions that such evidence did not exist and had been invented by Lieutenant Morant as a fabrication to deny criminal culpability. In making this admission, he plays down the role of St Clair, when in fact St Clair was a senior lawyer (Deputy Judge Advocate) representing the Judge Advocate General in South Africa. In addition, Craig’s campaign to bastardise Morant et al includes misleading and unsupported statements on the hardship under which the BVC was operating, the character of its officers, the number of shootings attributed to the BVC, the civilian status of the victims, and a fabrication that the victims were made to dig their own graves before they were shot.

I have never read any material authored by Craig that analyses the military law as it pertained to this case. His recent attempts to counter my research in support of appeal and the granting of pardons lacks substance and credibility. A considered opinion on the circumstances of the Morant case should be limited to historical and legal submissions supported by credible evidence and not rumour and innuendo. Historian he may be, but Craig has enjoyed the high ground and his claim to be the expert on Boer war matters. However, this does not give him special privilege over determining matters of justice. That is the role of the courts independent of bias and vested interests.

Frankly, the case against these men has resided in the exclusive realm of historians for too long. However, recent evidence in the context of principles of military law conclude that these men were not tried according to laws of 1902.

When I commenced my research, and indeed to this day, I have received some personal abuse in an attempt to distract me from my focus to expose the gross injustice that perpetrated this affair 110 years ago. Much of the abuse has been of personal nature directed at my profession as a military lawyer and my impudence to suggest that the British military may have conspired to deny Morant, Handcock and Witton fair trials and impose excessive punishments, or at least make errors in the administration of justice.

My quest to have this case judicially reviewed was not going to be without controversy. Since I petitioned the Queen in 2009,[2] evidence that contradicts the guilt of the accused has emerged and the groundswell of calls for an independent inquiry has grown. It will continue to do so until this case is reviewed by an independent authority devoid of political interference and reaction from those who fear challenge to the status quo and prefer to hide behind generalisations dressed up as empirical and validated research. I have invoked a process of review that has stood the test of time in the practice of our democracy.  My call is simple: subject this case to judicial determination of the law and fact and put an end to the controversy and bickering that has plagued this case.

Current pleas

Many reputable people have commented on this case. Their views about the need for redress are valuable as they demonstrate the level of concern held by many Australians about the perceived injustice.

Robert McClelland MP, former Attorney General, in a letter to me in October 2011 stated in part:[3]

I am impressed by the significant work that you have undertaken on the men’s cases. You have obviously undertaken significant research into the men’s convictions and sentences and it is clear that you are dedicated to ensuring that this matter is comprehensively examined.  This case does raise procedural fairness concerns, questions exist as to whether the men received fair treatment in accordance with the standards accepted at the time. To this end I have asked my Department to prepare a submission to the British Secretary of State, the Right Honourable Dr Liam Fox to draw his attention to the questions that exist in this regard.

Julia Irwin, chairperson of the House of Representatives Petitions committee that held a public inquiry into the case for pardons in March 2010 stated:[4]

The Australians were held responsible for a strategy to which the military command was unwilling to admit. 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’;

Alex Hawke MP, a member of the Petitions Committee addressed the Parliament after the hearing on 15 March 2010. In part he stated[5]:

What stands out about this case and where I think this comes into focus for the Australian parliament and indeed for us as a nation is that without any reference to the Australian government or any Australian legal process, the two men, Morant and Hancock, were executed by the British, without appeal. 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.

Great Britain did make a mess of the trial. And the fact that the trial was not conducted properly means there is an avenue for redress of those convictions.

Alex Hawke MP again addressed the House of Representatives on 27 February 2012 saying:[6]

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.

International human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC stated: [7]

Breaker Morant’s trial was a particularly pernicious example of using legal proceedings against lower ranks as a means of covering up the guilt of senior officers and of Kitchener himself, who gave or approved their unlawful “shoot to kill” order.  Morant may have been all too happy to obey it, of course, in which case he deserved some punishment.  But it was wrong to use him as a scapegoat for an unlawful policy. I regard the convictions of Morant and Handcock as unsafe.

Barrister David Denton SC reviewed the case in 2011 at my request to provide an independent review of my submissions to the British government.  He concluded his analysis of the evidence thus:[8]

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 enquiry would be a valid exercise of the defence power under the Constitution with respect to Australian military veterans.

In addition to these individuals, the following community figures have called for pardons or at least an independent inquiry into the circumstance of the trials and sentences of Morant, Handcock and Witton:

Tony Smith, MP, Christine Fyfe, MP, former Senator Julian McGauran, former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, Lawyers,  Sir Laurence Street, Justice of the Supreme Court  NSW, Charles Francis, QC, and Dr Zelling, Justice of the SA Supreme Court, barrister, Beach Thomas, Solicitor

Sir Isaacs Isaacs

Perhaps the most extraordinary and enduring advocate for justice in this case was learned jurist and politician Isaac Isaacs KC MP (destined to become Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and Governor General),  who in 1902 took up the case for the pardoning and releasing George Witton who had been sentenced to life imprisonment. In August 1902, six months after Morant’s and Handcock’s executions, Isaacs completed a legal advice and a petition to the King.[9] His work paralleled the storm of protest from Australians, representations from the South African Government and British politicians, including Winston Churchill, for Witton’s release.

Isaacs’ professional analysis of the case against Witton (and by implication the prosecution evidence against Morant and Handcock), argued that the men obeyed orders that they honestly believed had been issued by their British superiors, that the orders existed, and that the principle of condonation ought to have been applied at the courts martial. In this regard, Isaacs quoted from the Duke of Wellington edict on the performance of a duty of honour or trust after the knowledge of a military offence ought to convey a pardon. He also quoted from military lawyer of the time, Clode’s observation, “no soldier should be put on duty having hanging over him the sentence of a court martial”[10]

Isaacs’ opinion still provides compelling reason why in the present these men should be pardoned. Isaacs’ understanding of the case was contemporaneous with the trial convictions and sentences came from a jurist who held a prominent position in Australia. My proposition is that Isaacs’ representation of Witton would not have occurred had he not been convinced that the charges against these men were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and did not receive fair trials.

Historical argument on this case has filled journals, books, entertained readers and viewers and fuelled the egos of academics. However, in my view military law of 1902 that was used to prosecute these men has never been thoroughly examined and re revisited to settle this controversial case.  I am not satisfied that the charges against these volunteer soldiers was proven beyond reasonable doubt and they were denied fair trials according to the law of 1902.

The law of the civilised society is more a more discerning and precise instrument than historical debate and I have focused on the legal aspects of this case as that’s where this saga began and where it will ultimately end – with the law not history being the ultimate judge of whether Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton were guilty as charged or innocent and used as political pawns for the crimes of their superiors.

If fatal flaws were made in the administration of justice yet to be determined by an independent inquiry, then the British reputation for fair play and justice should prevail, apologies issued and pardons granted

Why am I doing this?

Firstly, it is the right thing to do. Injustices in times of war are inexcusable and it takes vigilance to right wrongs and address injustices to honour those unfairly treated and to demonstrate respect to the rule of law. This principle exists today and for nations that understand and respect the rule of law both nationally and internationally, the passing of time and the fact that Morant, Handcock and Witton are deceased does not diminish errors in the administration of justice

Secondly, I researched the work of lawyer Major James Francis Thomas, who defended these men. I became concerned as to why a distinguished member of Tenterfield, a community leader, newspaper owner, (Tenterfield Star), solicitor and advocate for Federation, protested the innocence of his clients from the moment of their convictions and sentencing until his death in 1942.

In one of many letters he wrote to politicians and others, he expressed his concerns for his clients. Thomas described the case against the accused in detail to Witton’s father and protested their innocence.  He stated:[11]

As counsel for your son, and the other officers, I should like to see that all the facts- from the prisoners’ point of view-are fairly brought forward. You might see the Premier of Victoria and show him this letter.

In another letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in 1923, Thomas again pleaded his client’s innocence.   In addition, to claiming that orders to shoot prisoners were issued, he concluded: [12]

As I defended all the accused, I perhaps know more about the facts than anyone else. The true story of the Bush Veld Carbineers has never been told, but perhaps someday it will be.

I maintain these men were the victims not perpetrators of war crimes, crimes instigated by their superiors who were engaged in a brutal war against an elusive enemy reminiscent of modern day Al Quida and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. The Boers were never defeated by the British military, persuaded to the peace table yes, but never beaten. Morant, Handcock and Witton were singled out for special prosecution treatment while others were not prosecuted. Like Major Thomas, I wish to see justice done!

War criminals?  What do we know from 1902?

• Morant, Handcock and Witton pleaded not guilty to all charges;
• All three defendants admitted to shooting prisoners;
• The charges involved 12 Boers;
• Morant, Handcock and Witton were found not guilty of murdering a missionary by the name of Heese;
• Morant and Handcock were sentenced to be executed, Witton sentenced to life imprisonment;
• Against such serious charges, the accused had one day to consult with their counsel, Major Thomas, and no representation at the court of inquiry;

• The accused argued obedience to orders not to take prisoners, provocation and extenuating circumstances.

Take no prisoners

The evidence of take no prisoners, was confirmed by one of the British military’s senior Judge Advocates given the responsibility of reviewing the evidence that was presented to the Court of Inquiry in 1901.

The existence of orders not to take prisoners is contained in a legal opinion written by Colonel. James St Clair, Deputy Judge Advocate General and addressed to Major General Kelly, Adjutant General. The existence of orders not to take prisoners is contained in a legal opinion written by Colonel J. St Clair, Deputy Judge Advocate General. St Clair was a decorated officer in South Africa and had the distinguished responsibility of reviewing all trials, decisions and sentences. He was not, as was suggested by Craig Wilcox, a mere legal officer. St Clair’s review of the Morant inquiry was addressed to Major General Kelly, Adjutant General. [13]

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 in my opinion rendered him personally responsible for the shooting of these 6 Boers who were coming in to surrender and who made no defence when fired on as being an accessory before the fact he is liable to a charge of murder.

The verbal orders given by Captain Taylor to the officers and men of the BVC at various times not to take prisoners rendered him primarily responsible for these massacres and I think he is liable as an accessory before the fact’

Captain Taylor of British Intelligence was effectively in command of the BVC in his district, and senior to Captain Hunt of the BVC; this was confirmed in court by a number of witnesses. St Clair’s findings about Captain Taylor are significant as he confirmed that Taylor, and the late Captain Hunt, both professional British officers were responsible for issuing orders not to take prisoners. Furthermore, Taylor was primarily responsible for all the murders by the BVC, and others on his own account. What is notable is that Taylor was allowed to resign his commission, was tried as a civilian, and was only charged with the murder of the six Boers (that did not involve Morant et al) and one other murder. This was at odds with the recommendations made by St Clair. Taylor was acquitted of all charges, on flimsy grounds, and reinstated into the army, which has left a significant blot on the interests of justice.  Ultimately of course, Morant, Handcock and Witton were left to take responsibility for orders issued by their superiors!

Evidence of orders also came from George Witton’s own writing, including his reproduction of transcriptions from the trials of the testimony of Morant.[14]

I have also uncovered other evidence of such orders from British soldiers, who wrote letters to their families in England, later published in British newspapers.  Most unpublished memoirs, letters, and diaries of soldiers who served in the war made some reference to this subject and many were approved of the tactic to shoot prisoners. Many instances occurred long before Morant served in the Bushveldt Carbineers. Examples included:

Private C. Chadwick, 3rd Grenadier Guards, admitted shooting of prisoners when he wrote:[15]

The Boers cry for mercy when they know they have no chance of shooting you down, but we take no notice of the crying, and stick the bayonet through them;

Lord Kitchener has issued orders that no man has to bring in any Boer prisoners; if he does he has to give him half his rations for the prisoner’s keep. Lord Roberts was too lenient with the Boers. De Wet sent in to General Knox asking for an armistice. Lord Kitchener told General Knox to keep on shelling him while he brought up reinforcements.[16]

We take no prisoners now. … There happened to be a few wounded Boers left. We put them through the mill. Every one was killed.’ About five Boers were brought in for not putting down their arms, and they all got shot the next day. I was on guard over them in the night, and you should have heard them praying when they knew they were to die next morning. They were taken out the next morning, made to dig their own graves, and two of the sections of my company went down about nine o’clock in the morning and shot them. The best thing to do with them is to serve them all alike.[17]

Frank Stephenson, 10th (Sherwood Rangers) Company Imperial Yeomanry, wrote home in April 1901:[18]

There is an understanding out here among all our Soldiers that no prisoners are to be taken, if it can be possibly helped.

H. Hayes, 84th Battery, RFA, likewise sympathized with his comrades who killed their prisoners:[19]

I would shoot everyone on first sight. All they have to do is come in and get a free pardon then nip out after they found all the tips and pop a few outposts off, but they don’t always get off with the white flag trick now, for I saw 12 Boers put the rag up by Devils knuckles to the Australian Mounted infantry and they coolly walked up and bayoneted all the lot – no prisoners with them. They are a fine lot of chaps so are the Canadians the Boers detest them. Worst of all. For they don’t believe in being shot all up the side of a hill and on getting to the top to see the white flag. They finish them off to a man.

Assertions and evidence tabled by Mr John Dillon, MP, House of Commons during debates in February 1901. Dillon made claims about orders not to take prisoners and quoted from letters written by British soldiers. H. R. Lister, City of London Imperial Volunteers (CIV), explained in his diary why he supported the shooting of prisoners:[20]

Several of them ought to be shot, and I think our leniency does not act at all in our favour towards an enemy like the Boers. Take for example a lad of 16 who after his father has raised the white flag over his arm has been allowed all the privileges of neutrality, is found signalling from the roof to the enemy five miles away (of course on his father’s instructions). They ought to have sent out half a section of [Mounted Infantry] and shot all the men found on the farm without satisfactory explanations instead of taking prisoners. We are too lenient toward our adversaries and I am sure they take it for weakness on our part.

The facts put forward by Mr Dillon corroborate the defence made by Morant, Handcock and Witton. As members of an irregular unit, specifically formed to fight Boer rebels and believing that the rules of warfare were suspended, they received orders from Captain’s Taylor and Hunt. Morant, Handcock and Witton were then refused any recognition of the existence of such orders and a defence at court martial of following orders, while culpability was attributed to Captain Taylor, (as recommended by Colonel St Clair).

This evidence also puts to rest the claims of Craig Wilcox who has argued that such orders never existed and that the practice of shooting g prisoners did not exist until Morant et al were arrested for such crimes. The practice of shooting of prisoners does appear to have occurred with some regularity, was condoned by many British officers and involved British regular soldiers and not just a few inexperienced irregular colonial soldiers.

Summary of submissions in support of review and pardons

Court of Inquiry – 1901. Denial of procedural fairness, including solitary confinement for 3 months, no legal counsel, no communication with witnesses and Australian Government.  They were even denied access to the prison chaplain;

Dec 1901 – Jan 1902.  Denial of fairness to prepare defence cases for trial, including access to defence witnesses;

Courts Martial – Only one day to prepare a defence to capital offences.  The decision to approve one defending officer representing 5 accused was unfair and created a potential conflict of interest, prejudicial to a fair trial & gave an unfair advantage to the prosecution.

Errors by Judge Advocate in Courts Martial denied the men fair trials.

The members of the courts martial were not properly directed to a competent standard by the judge advocate on critical issues;

• Evidence of provocation, evidence of the accused’s limited military service, their status as volunteers and limited education and ignorance of military law in determining criminal culpability;

• Sentencing provisions and principles in accordance with the Manual of Military Law, 1898  were not applied;

• Admissibility and relevance of evidence of instances of shooting Boer prisoners. Assess the evidence of orders not to take prisoners issued by British officers to Morant and others, the law that existed in 1902 and whether Morant et al acted lawfully in carrying out such orders in accordance with  Military law and custom of 1902;

• The significance of mitigating circumstances and recommendations for mercy and how these could be used in the sentencing process.

Review of convictions and sentences of 1902

• Accused denied appeal to the Crown, (the King), the military redress of wrongs procedure and contact with Australian government to plead on their behalf;[21]The only appeal is by way of memorial to the Crown acting through the Secretary of State. It is the usual practice to refer the matter to the Judge Advocate General and if need be to the Law offices of the Crown for report that no man may suffer from error in the tribunal;

• The prisoners should have had been given the right to petition the confirming authority (Kitchener) and the reviewing authorities of the Crown; An Officer should not have to be disposed to push to extremes his right of complaint before the Sovereign. [22]

• Evidence discloses that Lord Kitchener made himself unavailable immediately after the sentences were announced. In so doing, he was unable to deal with any matter arising out of the convictions.   Lord Kitchener contributed to a denial of due process, by failing to make himself available to the accused or their counsel, Major Thomas, to seek his reconsideration;

• Significance of courts martial recommendations for mercy.

Condonation

Pardons should be granted to the accused arising from calls to service while under arrest and trial during a Boer attack on Pietersburg on 23 January 1902 and again on 31 January 1902.

Condonation received judicial sanction in the nineteenth century:[23]

When any offence has been committed by officer or soldier and that offence not punished or forgiven but advisedly overlooked, the person implicated being continued in his employment these circumstances are held to be a good plea of condonation and a bar to further proceedings.

The discharge of duty involves condonation and quotes the Duke of Wellington as writing: “The performance of a duty of honour and trust after knowledge of a military offence ought to convey a pardon.”[24]. There is also evidence that condonation applied because the alleged offences were condoned by superior officers, in particular Captain Taylor and district Commander, Colonel Hall.

Case for judicial inquiry

• Charles Francis, QC stated:,’”their conviction was clearly wrong in law”;[25]

• Review supported by former Attorney General, Robert McClelland MP and David Denton SC;

• Plea by descendants of Morant, Handcock and Witton for a fair process of review independent of government;[26]

• Noting the culpability of British officers for issuing orders to take no prisoners, there is a case for pardons to acknowledge that these men were under duress to obey orders while recognising that the officers who issued such orders were not prosecuted while Morant,

• Handcock and Witton were held culpable for the actions of their superiors;

• A judicial inquiry will demonstrate that trial by due process of law and conviction beyond reasonable doubt are critical aspects of a democracy.  Any perceived injustice in the administration of justice must be addressed regardless of the circumstances or age of the matter;

• Doubts about this case have been expressed since 1902 through Witton’s counsel, Isaac Isaacs.

I was pleased to note that the current Attorney General Ms Nicola Roxon MP is considering making representation to the British government concerning lack of due process and case for pardons.

Conclusion

My research and petitioning the British Crown is about a plea for an inquiry independent of political and vested interests. Such interests of individuals and groups are about maintaining the status quo and not about considering that the British military got it wrong 110 years ago. The process was and remains tainted with the suggestion that that these men were scapegoats for illegal policies on the treatment of Boer prisoners and to appease German concerns about the shooting of the Reverend Hesse (a charge that Morant and Handcock were acquitted of).

That the he evidence places the convictions and sentences in doubt cannot be denied.  In military matters, no greater injustice is shown when transgressors charged with any offence, even ones that strike at the heart of humanity, are subjected to trial process that is not fair and according to law. We have seen this obiter applied in the present to the treatment of war criminals, including coalition soldiers fighting in the Middle East and detaining and torturing prisoners in infamous locations like Abu Ghraib. In 2012, as in 1902, the principles of justice in the trial of military personnel must be elevated above all other considerations.

This matter involves injustice and how we respond will be a test of our values and treatment of these Australian veterans. Their descendants and those who respect the rule of law await justice and that must be put above all other considerations. Perhaps, Major Thomas’ call for an inquiry will be finally fulfilled.

ENDNOTES

[1] House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions, Reference: Petition regarding the convictions of Morant, Handcock and Witton , 15 March  2010

[2] James Unkles, Petition to British Crown dated 15 October 2009

[3] Robert McClelland letter to J Unkles, 15 October 2011

[4] Julia Irwin MP, Extract from Hansard, House of Representatives, 26 October 2009

[5] Alex Hawke MP,  member of the Petitions Committee, 15 March  2010

[6] Alex Hawke MP, op cit

[7] Geoffrey Robertson, QC as quoted in J Unkles An Infantry Officer In Court – A Review of  Major James Francis Thomas as Defending Officer for Lieutenants Breaker Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton – Boer War, October 2010

[8] David Denton SC opinion, 7 July 2011

[9] Isaac Isaacs. KC MP legal opinion 28 August 1902 & Petition to Crown for pardon  August 1902

[10] C.Clode, Military Forces of the Crown 1869,  p 175

[11] J.F. Thomas’ letter, Weekly Times newspaper dated 5 April 1903, p.23 and also letter from Thomas to Mr Witton (father of George Witton) dated 2 March 1902

[12] J.F. Thomas’ letter to Sydney Morning Herald 1923

[13] The National Archives (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO),WO83/11, Judge Advocate-General’s Office, Minute Books, 18 December 1901, p 421

[14] G.Witton, Scapegoats of the Empire, The true story of Breaker Morant’s Bushveldt Carbineers, 1907

[15] Stephen M. Miller, Duty or Crime? Defining Acceptable Behavior in the British Army in South Africa, 1899–1902, p.320 &  Stead, The War in South Africa, 23.

[16] Nick Bleszynski “Shoot Straight You Bastards”– The Truth Behind the Killing of “Breaker” Morant, 2^nd edition.2002 p 657

[17] Wolverhampton Express and Star 12 January  1901,  p 2

[18] Frank Stephenson to home, 14 April 1901, Stephenson Papers, NAM

[19] Stephen M. Miller, Duty or Crime? Defining Acceptable Behavior in the British Army in South Africa, 1899–1902, p.320 & H. Hayes to Parfill, 15 November 1900, Hayes Papers 8102–32, National Army Museum (NAM), London.

[20] Miller op cit, p 321 & Diary entry, 12 April 1900,  Lister Papers, NAM

[21] Manual of Military Law, 4th edition, 1899

[22] Manual of Military Law, 1898 Army Act, 1879,  p175

[23] C. Clode, Military Forces of the Crown 1869, 103

[24] C.Clode, Military Forces of the Crown 1869, 173

[25] C. Francis QC, letter to Herald Sun, Copyright News Limited 13 Feb 2002

[26] Descendants Letter to Dr Liam Fox,  4 February 2010