Shot at Dawn and Pardoned

[CalumD]

Can anyone tell me if the families of the soldiers who were 'Shot at Dawn' in the First World War and subsequently pardoned were ever informed, by the MoD, of the pardon? Did the MoD ever attempt to trace the families?

Can the family of a soldier 'Shot at Dawn' request some sort of certificate from the MoD showing that a pardon has been granted?

Was the medal entitlement to those 'Shot at Dawn' reinstated?

Any info greatly appreciated

Calum

[Currie]

Hello Calum,

The pardon was enacted in Section 359 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

However section 359(4) states that the pardon "does not affect any conviction or sentence." Since the nature of a pardon is normally to commute a sentence, Gerald Howarth MP asked during parliamentary debate: "we are entitled to ask what it does do." It would appear to be a symbolic pardon only, and some members of Parliament had called for the convictions to be quashed, although the pardon has still been welcomed by relatives of executed soldiers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Act_2006

The conviction stands. This is a theoretical commutation of a death sentence to a prison sentence. The problem here has always been that these men were shot dead, not that they were punished and lost their medal entitlement. Did British soldiers who were imprisoned during WW1 because of serious military crimes lose their entitlement to campaign medals? According to this page they did (also see the list of posts) http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forum ... ded&start=

Why should the Shot at Dawn receive medals and the others not?

The MOD would have about as much chance of finding the families of those shot at dawn as you or I would. And which family member would they be trying to contact? Who of the many would be the beneficiary if there was an issue of medals or even certificates for that matter?

All the best,
Alan

[emanday]

Why should the Shot at Dawn receive medals and the others not?

I understand that the pardons were eventually issued on the basis that many (but not all) of the "Shot at Dawn" victims would now be recognised as suffering from severe trauma/stress and not simply labelled as cowards, as they were then.

Severe trauma/stress suffered under fire is an illness that is now recognised as a "injury" so to speak, just like a bullet wound.

So, yes. I believe many of them DO deserve to at least be awarded their medals.

As for the convictions still to stand? Personal opinion only, but those who were shot for cowardice but could have been trauma sufferers should have their convictions quashed. It would be the honourable thing to do.

[Roxy]

Whilst I concur that some of those executed for cowardice/desertion during WW1 may have been suffering from trauma, I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that they all (or even many) were. On the other hand, I believe that there is some evidence to suggest that at least some of those executed knew exactly what they were doing - some were habitual offenders.

So, whilst some of those executed may have been miscarriages of justice (taking into account modern knowledge of the medical conditions) and should be awarded their medals awarded and their convictions quashed, in my opinion, to give a blanket quashing of convictions and retrospective awarding their medals to all of those executed would demean the sacrifice of those men suffering from trauma who managed to stand their ground and did not run away. Just my opinion - and I am aware that there is a valid arguement for the 'other side'.

Roxy

[morgano]

For the most part, British WWI courts-martial did not consider themselves competent to convict men of cowardice, since cowardice is a state of mind, which cannot be demonstrated. Desertion is a demonstrable action. There were patrols and checkpoints on the Western Front to pick up innocent stragglers, or those who were plain lost, and return them to their units. If a man evaded a number of such patrols and checkpoints, he was likely to be assumed to have done so intentionally and a charge of desertion would follow.

Wartime desertion had been punishable by death in the British Army all the way from Marlborough's time; I am pretty sure that the likes of Cromwell, Leslie and Montrose were equally unforgiving before that. As I have said, the WWI army went to some lengths to avoid charging innocent men with desertion; of those who were charged and convicted, the great majority were not sentenced to death. Of all the death sentences passed (for all crimes) in British courts-martial in WWI, ninety per cent were commuted. Deserters were much more likely than murderers to have their sentences commuted.

The war-time records of the courts-martial are far from complete. There is enough evidence to suggest that miscarriages of justice did occur, where brave men had finally cracked under the strain. There are also cases where the surviving evidence shows very elaborate preparations for desertion, or others where the convicted men deserted before ever crossing the Channel. What the records do not contain is the range of documentary evidence available at the time.

My own view is that the blanket "pardon" was a disgrace. For starters, it included murderers. Then there was the arrogance of the MoD in assuming that it could second-guess the courts-martial that had had access to the full evidence. Worst of all was the way in which the then Defence Secretary, Des Browne, announced his cynical little headline-grabber on a day when British servicemen died fighting in Afghanistan, when his priorities were thousands of miles from where they should have been.