First Teddy Sheean’s VC, now ‘justice’ for Breaker Morant

Breaker Morant’s descendants call for expert inquiry into Boer War conviction, followed by posthumous pardon.

Cathie Morant, a distant relative of Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant, near her home in Canberra. She is among those pursuing a Sheean-style expert review, as well as a posthumous pardon, for Harry and two comrades, convicted in 1902 of murdering Boer prisoners. Picture by Sean Davey.

Descendants of Breaker Morant and his co-accused Boer War comrades are calling for a new Teddy Sheean-style expert inquiry into their convictions in the hope of posthumous pardons.

The subject matter of the Sheean and Morant cases could not be more different — Sheean a war hero; Morant and men alleged war criminals, convicted in 1902 of shooting 12 Boer prisoners.

However, descendants and supporters of Morant and his men told The Weekend Australian there were common elements from the Sheean saga that could be applied to their own intergenerational quest for justice. Similarities included decades of top brass and bureaucratic intransigence, British sensitivities and an accumulated body of evidence pointing to an historic “injustice”.

The mechanism used to resolve the debate over Sheean’s Victoria Cross — an analysis of key evidence by an expert panel appointed by the Prime Minister — should be adopted to finally resolve the Morant debate, they argue.

“The Teddy Sheean matter came to a head with a fair, independent review and I ask the Prime Minister: what is there to fear in appointing a similar review of the Morant matter?” said military lawyer James Unkles.

“It’s that style of review that I am seeking on behalf of the descendants. We are not talking about a lot of money here. No one is looking for compensation.

“They are looking for a fair hearing and to bring the case out of the cover of bureaucrats within government who deny the case. Such a review by an expert panel would bring it into the open and independently examine the evidence that I’ve accumulated.”

This overwhelmingly showed Harry “Breaker” Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton were following British orders, did not receive a fair trial, were denied appeal rights, and were prevented from seeking the help of the Australian government.

The men, among many Australians serving in what was essentially a British counter-insurgency unit, the Bushveldt Carbineers, were arrested in October 1901 and charged with murder.

A solicitor-soldier from NSW, Major J. F. Thomas, was ordered with a day’s notice to prepare a defence for the men, who were found guilty. Morant and Handcock were executed by firing squad hours after the verdicts; Witton was jailed for life but released four years later.

Mr Unkles, instrumental in securing a 2018 House of Representatives motion expressing regret that the men were denied procedural fairness, has now drafted a bill granting them a posthumous pardon.

Descendants and distant relatives believe the Sheean case showed an independent review was capable of righting an historic wrong. “It has given us fresh hope that maybe it will happen for us and that we shouldn’t give up,” Cathie Morant, a distant cousin to Breaker, said. “It’s become apparent that the three of them were scapegoats. I don’t think that’s in dispute any more.”

A posthumous pardon would finally remove the stain of “traitor” that relatives and descendants had endured for generations. “This is an opportunity to correct that wrong,” she said.

Michelle Witton agreed. “The Sheean panel was a novel and timely initiative in looking at an historic issue afresh with experts,” she said. “It becomes increasingly important that these historic issues are reviewed and potentially addressed now because with the passage of time we become ever-further divorced from those events.”

There is significant sympathy for the Morant cause across the political divide, as evidenced by the 2018 House of Representatives motion, with those backing an independent review in the past including senior Coalition figures.

In 2013, minister Greg Hunt backed a “proper independent inquiry”, believing the Australians had been convicted via a “show … sham trial”.