Breaker Morant gets his day in court

A legal dream team, featuring prominent QC Julian Burnside, will represent Australian soldier Harry “Breaker” Morant in a non-binding appeal against his 111-year-old conviction.

Leanne Mezrani • 03 July 2013 • The Bar

Military lawyer James Unkles (pictured) has been petitioning the British and Australian governments for four years to re-examine Morant’s case, and that of co-accused Peter Handcock; both were executed in 1902 for killing prisoners during the Boer War.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

Unkles told Lawyers Weekly that he requested the Victorian Bar hold an exhibition appeal in the hope it would “move the British government to the point of negotiation”. He added that the former and current attorneys-general, Nicola Roxon and Mark Dreyfus, “have not been very helpful”.

“I hope the commentary in the judgment will corroborate what I’ve been saying for four years, that this case was grossly unjust and constructed in a way that these Australians were denied fair trials,” he said.

Unkles has enlisted high-profile legal counsel to assist with the case, including Burnside and former US military lawyer Lieutenant Colonel Dan Mori, who represented David Hicks during his American military commission trial process.

At the heart of appeal is the argument that the soldiers were denied the right of appeal under the Manual of Military Law (1898). There will also be a theoretical examination of what an appeal would have looked like had the lawyer representing the soldiers lodged one.

VIEW ALL

Even though the proceedings, which are being held according to the military laws of 1902, will not be legally binding, Unkles said it was important that details of the case be aired to the public.

He also claimed the case has present-day implications, making comparisons to prosecutions in connection with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It reverberates today in Britain’s involvement in wars in the Middle East; in particular, it reminds us of war crimes and excess retribution,” said Unkles.

The appeal will be heard on 20 July in the historic Banco Court in Melbourne’s Supreme Court and streamed online.

Peter Wang Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Its 'Morant', not 'Meurant', and with respect, try doing some research instead of expressing uneducated opinions.

0
Tim Cameron Monday, 22 July 2013

Nope, it has always been called the Boer war as far as I'm aware and I have an interest in military history. Never heard of "the South African war"?

0
RenÃ© Tuesday, 16 July 2013

It is the Anglo-Boer war or the South African war. The Boers did not fight themselves. Please get the terminology right.

0
JulianBurnside Friday, 12 July 2013

Sadly this is out of date. I am actually not available that day. But it should be a great event

0
JulianBurnside Friday, 12 July 2013

Sadly, this item is out of date: I am not able to appear that day. But it is sure to be a great event Julian Burnside

0
John Flood Friday, 12 July 2013

I was showing the film "Breaker Morant" to my law summer school students today. The parallels with the present situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are uncanny. Whether or not he was guilty--and tusJohnCox can't be certain--the court martial was a stitch up from the start. All three defendants were denied due process and sacrificed to political expediency. I hope Mr Unkles continues his pursuit of justice for Morant and Hancock.

0
John Cox Monday, 08 July 2013

Why are they pursuing this? Meurant was a nasty piece of work. He was clearly guilty of murdering a number of people. He was only convicted of some of them - he could have been shot several times over! A right of appeal would have made no difference to the findings of fact. I can only assume that these people have a movie or book in the pipeline.

0
Absurdiness Brown Friday, 05 July 2013

"Nicola Roxon and Mark Dreyfus, â€œhave not been very helpfulâ€." Well yes, but they may have gotten THIS one right.

0
Bemused Thursday, 04 July 2013

And, while we're carping, the plural of "attorney general" is "attorneys general".

0
Mardi Thursday, 04 July 2013

You know he's dead, right . . . ? Seems like a lot of time and resources wasted to me when there are real, live people who could do with some assistance getting justice. The film is not a documentary you know.

0