I refer to a story in the 'Sunday Observer', dated 19 Feb 2006. Private Harry Farr was shot for cowardice. He refused to return to the trenches in 1916, after being in hospital for five months suffering from severe shell shock. Members of his family have uncovered evidence to show that Pt Farr was very ill and, as he had previously served for two years in the trenches, was far from being a coward. The family asked for a posthumous pardon but have been turned down by John Reid, the defence secretary. I just cannot understand this decison. This soldier fought bravely for his country and deserves better. Both France and Germany have decided to posthumously pardon their soldiers shot for 'desertion' and have built memorials to them. The fact that the British have not done the same is shameful. The Farr family are going to appeal in the High Court against Reid's decision and I, for one, wish them good luck.
I don't know if you have read my post, if not I am interested in finding any information I can about Private Robert William Gawler, who was also executed for desertion, unfortanatly I dont know his story which I am most interested in finding out about.
I think it's very sad that these often very young men have not been pardoned, as it stops them being recognised for what they did by their units & more, while they are ignored on many war memorials, as if they did not exist but they did, although thankfully not the CWGC.
If they had attempted to desert while at home they would have rightfully been punished but not sentenced to death & the evidence indicates that most of them were out of there depth & frightened & many had not reached the official age for joining up.
By the time the second world war came around we no longer dealt out this overly harsh sentence & I believe it's time for these men, to receive some recognition for paying for their dept with with there lives.
You should find a copy of Blindfold and Alone by John Hughes-Wilson and Catherine Corns, which is the most scholarly, objective study of WW1 executions.
I read “Blindfold & Alone” some months ago and it changed my views. I’d read other books on the subject and had, sort of unthinkingly, accepted that a terrible injustice had been done to these 300+ men.
The book is very informative in setting out the actual military law under which men were tried. It also points out that something like 10,000 men were convicted of military “capital crimes” (mainly desertion), yet all but this fairly small number had their sentences commuted.
Rather than taking the stance of pardons for everyone, it accepts that there were what we would now call miscarriages of justice in some of the cases. For example, in the case of Harry Farr, it concludes that he was “undoubtably a victim of the battle of the Somme, just as much as the other men of his battalion who died on the battlefield”.
But the book also points out, that “the whole point of justice is to discriminate between the innocent and guilty”. And I have no doubt, from reading this book and others, that the vast majority of these men were not only guilty but were also tried properly in accordance with the law of the time.
I am no supporter of capital punishment today, but you cannot re-write the fact that it was a legal sentence at the time.
I too was impressed by the arguments of the authors of 'Blindfold and Alone'. The authors' certainly seem less doggedly polemical than others who have published on the subject. I'm always worried by those who pursue their cause with messianic certainty!
I agree with Morris that there can certainly be a prima facie case made for Farr - though for me this would ideally be made on purely legal terms. Nor do I think the granting of any pardon to Farr should instigate a precedent - each case ought to be examined on any legal merits which may lend themselves to an appeal. And these appeals should certainly be heard by the judiciary - and not given out as an expediency by opportunistic headline-grabbing politicians!
I too oppose capital punishmenty today, but Morris makes an excellent point that you cannot rewrite the legal mores of nearly a century ago.
Originally posted by alikat: I don't know if you have read my post, if not I am interested in finding any information I can about Private Robert William Gawler, who was also executed for desertion, unfortanatly I dont know his story which I am most interested in finding out about.
I think it's very sad that these often very young men have not been pardoned, as it stops them being recognised for what they did by their units & more, while they are ignored on many war memorials, as if they did not exist but they did, although thankfully not the CWGC.
If they had attempted to desert while at home they would have rightfully been punished but not sentenced to death & the evidence indicates that most of them were out of there depth & frightened & many had not reached the official age for joining up.
By the time the second world war came around we no longer dealt out this overly harsh sentence & I believe it's time for these men, to receive some recognition for paying for their dept with with there lives.
