If senior Defence are trying to rob Teddy of the VC they should do it in the open

It’s inexplicable that a man who saved 100 lives, by sacrificing his own, doesn’t receive our nation’s highest honour – and if Defence are trying to rob Teddy, they should do it in the open, writes Jenna Cairney.

THE only question left to be answered in the campaign for Teddy Sheean to be posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross is: what exactly did Defence Minister Linda Reynolds miss?

Firstly, let’s set out the facts.

Last week, when justifying the Federal Government’s decision not to bestow the honour, Senator Reynolds told the Senate: “The 2019 review by the tribunal did not present any new evidence that might support reconsideration of the valour inquiries recommendation.”

She then went on: “That is also my view and the view of Defence.

“It is a very difficult decision, but I believe in the circumstance, the right decision.”

ORIGINAL STORY: DIGGER’S VICTORIA CROSS REJECTION REASONING WAS ‘FALSE’

We were told there were only two circumstances under which the honour awarded to a person could be appealed.

The first was if there was evidence a manifest injustice, such as an abuse of due process had occurred.

And the second was if new evidence came to light.

Veterans minister Guy Barnett and the nephew of Teddy Sheean, Garry Ivory. Picture: PATRICK GEE

Yesterday, the chair of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeal Tribunal Mark Sullivan broke his silence.

He did not do so lightly, however, he felt the need for the public record to accurately reflect the facts.

And what did he tell us?

That the very review, the very same 31-page-report which Senator Reynolds claimed: “did not present any new evidence” did in fact present new evidence.

Indeed, Mr Sullivan confirmed the heroics of the 18-year-old Lower Barrington man, who was schooled in Latrobe, were underplayed in a subsequent report to the British Admiralty.

He went so far as to state the report which the decision makers at the time received was: “inaccurate and … understated Sheean’s actions.”

For Teddy Sheean book review. TasWeekend.

This, he said, was new evidence which could validly lead to the VC being posthumously awarded.

In response to this quite striking correction of her earlier claims, Senator Reynolds provided a statement which said how sensitive this matter was and the high standard of scrutiny with which it was being treated.

Teddy Sheean (2nd L) with his dad James and mum Mary and three of his six brothers who also enlisted and fought during World War Two (WWII).

Perhaps more telling was her earlier statement that the view the Teddy Sheean should not be awarded the VC was one which was supported by Defence.

Should this be the case it is time for those pushing against the view to step out of the shadows and into the public arena.

MORE NEWS:

• No decision on borders to avoid deadly second wave
• How you can feed Tassie zoo’s big cats
• Pressure grows for answers on paedophile teachers

Should it be the case that senior Defence brass are once again seeking to rob Teddy Sheean of the honour he so obviously deserves, they should so in full view – rather than via behind closed doors communiques with Senator Reynolds.

It’s inexplicable that a man who saved 100 lives, by sacrificing his own, doesn’t receive our nation’s highest honour.

Sheean’s family, loved ones, descendants and supporters have had years of watching this matter be handled with “sensitivity” and “scrutiny”.

That Mr Sullivan felt obligated to speak out – and action he’s never done before – shows just how passionately he feels about the VC case.

Given his comments, this decision absolutely must be reviewed.

It’s time to award the VC and give the nation something to celebrate.