In a civilised society, the principle of natural justice must rule
This principle is as relevant today as it was in 1902.
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9nd0T_WpwU
I did this presentation for the NSWs Military Society in 2022.
The presentation cites the case for independent review and demonstrates that there is credible evidence that Lieutenants Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton were not investigated, tried and sentenced according to the law of 1902. Due process was not followed and the errors in the administration of justice were significant and fatal consequences.
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 made by the descendants of these men.
The guilt or innocence of these 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 during the time peace negotiations were taking place to bring a brutal war between the might of the British Empire and the dogged resistance by a determined enemy to an end? The Boers were not beaten into submission by a superior military force and a peace treaty was signed in May 1920.
In 2016, descendants of these men who I represent, signed a letter to Julie Bishop, MP. They pleaded for resolution through an independent inquiry;[i]
‘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’.
[i] Descendants letter to Julie Bishop,MP dated 4 October 2016
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 Australian 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.
Geoffrey Roberston, 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’