I am writing to express my support for a renewed effort to seek a posthumous pardon or judicial review for Harry “Breaker” Morant, executed in 1902 for war crimes during the Boer War. Drawing on the precedent of US Army Lt. William L. Calley Jr., convicted for the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, I believe Morant’s case warrants reconsideration due to procedural unfairness and his role as a scapegoat, as acknowledged by the Australian Parliament in 2018.

Both Morant and Calley faced trials marred by significant issues. Morant’s 1902 court-martial lacked appeal rights, provided inadequate legal representation, and restricted evidence access, as evidenced by military lawyer James Unkles’ findings and the 2015 Victorian Supreme Court mock trial, which overturned his conviction albeit non-binding. Similarly, Calley’s 1971 conviction for murdering 22 civilians faced criticism for inconsistent testimony and pressure to single out a junior officer. While Calley benefited from a modern appeals process, Morant was denied such recourse, leading to his execution.
Both men were sacrificed as scapegoats for higher command failures. Morant’s execution likely shielded British commanders like Lord Kitchener, who issued “no prisoners” orders (per Unkles’ 1902 legal opinion discovery). Calley, too, was viewed as a scapegoat for chaotic Vietnam War policies, with public outcry prompting President Nixon to reduce his life sentence to house arrest and parole. The Australian Parliament’s 2018 motion expressing regret for Morant’s “cruel and unjust” treatment mirrors this same sentiment, yet no clemency has been granted.

Calley’s case demonstrates that governments can act on public and moral grounds to mitigate injustice, even for serious crimes. In Calley's case, President Nixon’s intervention responded to just 5,000 telegrams and widespread “Free Calley” support, much like the 80,000 signatures for Morant’s co-accused, George Witton, in 1904. Today, Morant’s case enjoys ongoing support through your campaign and ongoing public interest, warranting similar consideration.
I respectfully submit my support for an independent judicial inquiry into Morant’s trial and strogly advocate for a British review of his conviction, as pursued by former Attorney-General Robert McClelland in 2011. Such action would align with Australia’s commitment to justice and honor the 2018 parliamentary motion.
Thank you for your much needed efforts in this regard.

Yours sincerely,
Mark R. Mullen
.

The fact that all of the accused defended Pietersburg during a Boer attack showed that they deserved a more lenient sentence than death or life imprisonment (pardoned after a few years). Furthermore if Witton was guilty of the crimeswhy was Witton released? Was it impossible for Witton to be found guilty in a fair trial. The trial, more than the allegations reek of conspiracy to protect the reputation of the higher ranked officers shown by the nature of the trial, the general appearance of unfairness and the lack of the court transcript.

Justice should be given to the decendents of these brave men and a pardon delivered.