LAST UPDATE: MONDAY: 13 FEBRUARY 2023:

In 1998, the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign was effectively dead in the water as a result of Minister of Defence John Reid's refusal to countenance any pardons. Following a telephone call in June 2001 from the coordinator of the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign who confirmed that his campaign effort was effectively going backwards, one decided to set up a separate Irish Shot at Dawn Campaign and it was agreed and understood by those in the UK that to be effective the Irish group would have to be totally separate from the British campaign and organised and managed from within the Republic of Ireland and to include the whole Island of Ireland. It was the Irish SAD Campaign effort that made the difference and but for the Irish input the Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign efforts in the UK would still be languishing in the cul-de-sac of the British political and legal system ad infinitum. The Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl founded and co-ordinated from Dublin was an independent Irish based group and was never a part or an adjunct of the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign. The Shot at Dawn Campaign Ireland and the Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign in the UK were always two separate and distinct entities; ie one Irish Campaign and one British Campaign, independent of each other, albeit in pursuit of the same objective. Our unique Irish identity was a major contributing factor and was one of the main reasons why the Irish SAD Campaign was so successful in attracting support. As some pundits continue to ignore or minimise the Irish Governments role towards the successful resolution of the pardons issue in 2006, the following inter-alia might be taken into account whenever discussions arise as to who did what and when:

1. On the 11 December 2003: following a request by the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl to the Irish Government requesting their support to persuade the British Government to introduce pardons for WW1 executed service personnel: The Irish Government announced their commitment to support our efforts : See Dail Debates 11th December 2003 - Shot at Dawn Campaign:

 

2. 09 March 2004: House of Commons: WW 1 Executed Soldiers:

Bob Spink MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence:

(1) what representations and discussions he has had on the Irish Government's recent support for a pardon for those soldiers wrongly executed during the First World War as part of the 90th anniversary of the outbreak of the war;
(2) if he will make it his policy to consult the Irish Government prior to the anniversary of the start of the First World War on the possible pardon of soldiers who were wrongly executed during the First World War;
(3) what plans he has to grant pardons to the Soldiers in the British Army who were executed in the First World War to mark the 90th anniversary of the outbreak of the war.

Mr Caplin MP: This matter was fully examined during the detailed review led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. John Reid), which was completed in 1998, and reported to the House 24 July 1998 Official Report, columns 1372–86. As a result, those who were executed have been recognised as victims of the War (No Pardons granted by Reid). An initial meeting at official level has been held at the request of the Irish Government on the subject of a possible pardon for Irish soldiers executed during the First World War and further contact is expected:

 

3. On the 28 October 2004: A Confidential Irish Government report into the execution of the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn during world war one, was submitted to the British Government by the Irish Government. Despite a freedom of information request from a British Newspaper in 2005 and continued requests to have the Irish report released the British Government steadfastly refused to release its contents:

 

4. 16 November 2004: Requested the support of Senator Brian Hayes FG and Senator Paschal Mooney FF to raise the issue of pardons for the 26 Irish WW1 Shot at Dawn with their British colleagues at the next meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body:

 

5. 17 November 2004: Dail Debates: Execution of Irish Born Soldiers:

 

6. 03 August 2005: Following a request that sight of the Irish Report was urgently required by the Farr Solicitors for their next hearing. A copy of Irish Government Report into the 26 Irish executed was forwarded to their solicitors:
 

7. 28 November 2005: Irish Times: Pardon Sought For Irish Executed Deserters:
 

8. 28 November 2005: Outrage At Refusal To Pardon Shot War Deserters:

 

9. 28 and 29 November 2005: British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body: Thirty-First Plenary Conference Edinburgh: At the request of the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl: Pardons issue raised by Irish members Senator Brian Hayes FG and Senator Paschal Mooney FF at the Edinburgh meeting of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body:
 

10. 09 January 2006: House of Lords: First World War: Pardons: Inspired by the example in Edinburgh by the contribution to the pardons debate by Senators Hayes and Mooney: Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government: ‘Whether they will now consider granting a pardon to the troops serving in the British Armed Forces who were shot for alleged cowardice and desertion during the First World War’? https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo060109/text/60109-01.htm
 

11. 12 January 2006: Following a request for information: Briefing material including a copy of the confidential Irish Government Report into the executions of the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn was sent to Lord Dubs for his attention, as he advised he wished to raise the issue of pardons for WW1 executed soldiers in a special debate in the Lord’s over the next few months:
 

12. 17 January 2006: Lord Dubs emailed the question: "Would the New Zealand model for pardons be an appropriate way forward" NOTE: The following is a re-edited very short version of a legal opinion communicated to Lord Dubs by the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl: QUOTE: “In light of the previous opinion of the Farr Case last May 2005 where Mr Justice Stanley Burnton found that there was "room for argument" that he, Harry Farr, had been wrongly refused a conditional pardon, his honour's legal opinion, is a way out for the MOD, if they wish, before any final adjudication of the matter in March by the courts, conditional means what it says, i.e. pursuant to the New Zealand (Pardons) Act.” UNQUOTE:

NOTE: An explanatory follows as to the legal effect of the NZ Pardons Act, which was also communicated to the British and Irish Governments: See: The New Zealand Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act: A Legal Prospective:

 

13. On Tuesday 28th March 2006 the Irish Government, against British objections, and pursuant to an Irish Seanad Debate, unilaterally released their confidential report into the executions of the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn in order to facilitate and inform debate in the UK, and in particular, to support the Irish Shot at Dawn Campaign effort to achieve Pardons for our 26 Irish executed: 29 March 2006: Irish Times pdf: Ahern to press UK on pardons for shot soldiers:
 

14. On the 15th August 2006 the Irish Government was contacted through diplomatic channels to advise that the British intended to initiate legislation to grant pardons to all the 306, in particular the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn. It was conveyed to the Irish Government that this British Pardons legislation was the official British Government response to the Irish Government report submitted to the Ministry of Defence via the Foreign and Commonwealth office in late 2004:

 

15. Through diplomatic channels, the Irish Government persuaded the British Government to expand the effects of their pardons legislation by inter alia having an acknowledgement of the pardon granted inscribed on all the Shot at Dawn courts-martial files, and a record of the pardon to be made available to families on request:

 

16. 18 September 2006: Cabinet Office: World War 1 Veterans (Pardons): In  a written statement, Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne) records: On 16 August I announced that the Government plan to seek parliamentary approval for a statutory pardon for service personnel executed for a range of disciplinary offences during the First World War. I am now taking this opportunity to confirm these plans to the House and to provide some further information on our intentions. As the amendment would affect the cases of personnel who were serving in the armed forces of a number of dominions and colonies, we are consulting with the Governments of those states or their successors on our plans. We are expecting to receive their responses shortly but I can confirm that our decision has already been welcomed by one of those principally affected (The Irish Government). I anticipate the Government's proposal will also be warmly welcomed by the public at large and particularly by the families concerned".

NOTE: From January 2004, the Irish Government consistently lobbied the British Government to get the British side to act and introduce a pardoning mechanism to resolve the WW1 executions of the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn. In this regard the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl contributed a submission to address British concerns suggesting the New Zealand Government's Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000 should be considered as a way of resolving the Pardons issue in the UK. Our submission entitled "The New Zealand Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000, A Legal Prospective" follows:

NOTE: THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE 2000 NZ PARDONS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN REPLICATED IN PART BY THE BRITISH: See extract Des Browne's Statement: "that execution was not a fate that the individual deserved but resulted from the particular discipline and penalties considered to be necessary at the time" : "so far as possible remove the particular dishonour that execution brought to the individuals and their families": SEE ALSO PARDON ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

 

17. The pardons granted were effective when her Majesty signed the legislation into law on Wednesday 8th November 2006, following its passage through the House of Commons:

 

18. All 306 executed for military offences during world war one were pardoned together and in alphabetical order pursuant to this legislation:

 

19. Although the names of the Irish Shot at Dawn were included in the Commonwealth War Graves Register, the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn were not listed in the separate Irish War Memorial Register. Following the successful outcome to the Pardons campaign, their names are now included in Irish war memorial records:

 

British-Irish Inter- Parliamentary Body-Thirty Third Plenary - Conference

23 and 24 October 2006: The Waterfront Hall, Belfast.

EXTRACT MINUTES

Mr Andrew Mackinlay MP: "I will talk about the St Andrews Agreement in a moment. First, I would like to add to Senator Hayes’s comments about the pardons granted to British Army soldiers who were killed in such terrible circumstances during the First World War. At its last plenary conference, this Body made representations in respect of those soldiers, and this plenary conference an occasion to place on record the process that resulted in the British Government’s decision to grant those pardons. At the outset, the Irish Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform made representations to the United Kingdom Government in respect of the 26 Irish soldiers who were executed. Following that, four ingredients contributed to the granting of the pardons."

Mackinlay: "First, the campaign had not gone away":

SAD IRL: Over the years, the Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign in the UK did make various attempts to resolve the WW1 pardons issue, however we in Ireland were advised in 2001 by John Hipkin, that the UK pardons campaign had effectively been halted in its tracks by the continual rejection of their efforts by the Ministry of Defence from 1998, and the annual rejection of Mr Mackinlay's Bill for pardons in the House of Commons. The UK Pardons campaign may not have gone away as Mr Mackinlay opines, however, it was certainly not moving forward and obviously needed to be re-invigorated if it was to achieve its objective. John Hipkin of the Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign in the UK, requested our assistance to kick-start a pardons campaign in Ireland and lobby the Irish Government to persuade the UK Government to introduce enabling legislation and grant pardons to WW1 executed Shot at Dawn Soldiers. Subsequently, a separate group named The Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl was formed with that objective in mind.

 

Mackinlay: "Secondly, a wonderful lady called Gertie Harris, the daughter of an executed soldier, took the British Ministry of Defence to court: a case that the Ministry of Defence lost": 

SAD IRL: The Ministry of Defence did not lose the Farr case as asserted by Mr Mackinlay. The Farr case had not reached a final conclusion and had not gone forward for a full hearing, indeed the preliminary opinion of Mr Justice Burnton in the initial application in May 2005 had already raised the legal bar to any future action by the British Government/MOD. Rather than resolving the issue the consequence of the Farr application in May 2005 effectively ruled out the full pardon option in all WW1 execution cases and any expected British political response to the Irish Government Report was re-routed and parked down a legal cul de sac for nearly two years, thereby taking the pressure off the British Government at a critical time in the Irish campaign. The introduction of the PARDONS FOR SERVICEMEN EXECUTED FOR DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES: RECOGNITION AS VICTIMS OF FIRST WORLD WAR on the 8th November 2006 is the British Government's official response to the Irish Government Report into the execution of the Irish Shot at Dawn 1914-18, but encumbered by the limitations set out in the May 2005 opinion of Mr Justice Burnton in the Farr application. In February 2006, we were advised that the Ministry of Defence had flatly refused to countenance a pardon for Harry Farr:  See: The Farr Case - A Cause Célèbre ?

 

Mackinlay: "The third ingredient was a change of Minister. Des Browne, a former Northern Ireland Minister, known to many people here and now Secretary of State for Defence, was sympathetic to the issue":

SAD IRL: Agreed: Des Brown's humanitarian and exemplary common sense approach was most definitely a key element alongside the compelling Report by the Irish Government, which together contributed to a final resolution of the pardons issue.

 

Mackinlay: "The final element was the compelling representations made by the Taoiseach on behalf of the Irish Republic. The Ministry of Defence knew that, at some stage, it would have to reply to those representations and that to do so would be extraordinarily difficult, because the representations were part of a skilfully and carefully crafted legal submission. I place that on record and, as someone associated with the campaign, I express my gratitude to the Government of the Irish Republic for its contribution to remedying that wrong":
SAD IRL: It was the Department of Foreign Affairs who compiled and submitted the report and not the Irish Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform as stated by Mr Mackinlay. The Irish Government's input was a crucial element towards the successful conclusion to the Pardons campaign. Indeed without the support of the Irish Government there would have been no pardons granted by the UK.

 

On the 11th July 2007: the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) in Great Britain and Ireland, located in London, concluded in his letter:  "We, perhaps more than others, are well aware that these pardons would not have been granted if it had not been for the support of the Irish and the pressure put on Whitehall by their counterparts in Dublin": See NUJletter-SADIrl-11July2007:

NOTE: Significantly, the NUJ comment, is the only UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT to date from British connections which acknowledges the crucial role of the Irish Government towards the successful achievement of Pardons for all those executed British soldiers Shot at Dawn during the Great War 1914 to 1918:

Re an Irish Pardon for Irish born British soldiers Shot at Dawn:
On the pretext that such a measure would be persuasive in encouraging a British Government to look more sympathetically at the pardons issue it was suggested through an Irish politician on behalf of Andrew Mackinlay MP at a private meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs just hours before the Seanad Éireann debate of 28 March 2006, that the Irish Government should independently proceed and pardon all our Irish born executed British soldiers irrespective of any British determination on the matter, effectively calling for an Irish panacea to a British dilemma prior to any final adjudication in the Farr case and significantly without consulting with the Irish SAD campaign effort ignoring our concerns. Those that mooted such a course of action should note the following. Constitutional obstacles and political sensitivities would have dictated that any pardon an Irish Government might have considered at that time would only have effected those Irish executed born in the Republic of Ireland, would have excluded those executed who were born in Northern Ireland, would not have effected the soldiers courts martial file it being held by the Ministry of Defence outside Irish jurisdiction, and taking into account historical concerns would ultimately have been divisive. Such an Irish pardon is and was never worth a penny candle and if introduced would have needlessly jeopardised the interests of our Irish families during a very sensitive time in the Irish Shot at Dawn Campaign. It is to their inestimable credit that the Irish Government took the advice of the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl resisted that pressure, and disregarded UK representations on behalf of the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign, a decision later vindicated by the introduction of the 2006 British Pardons Amendment the official British Government response to the 2004 Irish Government report.

The New Zealand Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000: A Legal Prospective

In September 2000 the New Zealand parliament passed into law a Pardons Act allowing for pardons for 5 New Zealand soldiers executed for alleged military offences during WW1. The following legal prospective will hopefully be of assistance:

Does the NZ Pardons Act overturn the original verdicts of courts-martial ?

The first point is that the Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000 seems to have been deliberately equivocal on the question whether the original courts-martial verdicts were overturned. Section 4 of the Act states that its purpose is to pardon five soldiers of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force who served as volunteers in the Great War and who were executed in one case for mutiny and the other four for desertion. The second purpose is to remove, in so far as practicable, the dishonour that the execution of those five soldiers brought to the soldiers and their families. When the Act was at its Bill stage it appears there was a deliberate intention to avoid the possibility of civil proceedings by family members. So no compensation can be sought. To the extent that the Act differs in its terms from the previous report made by Sir Edward Somers, the Act takes precedence. It appears that the Act does not overturn the original verdicts but attempts, in a unique fashion, to redress the severity of punishment exacted and the disgrace felt by the soldiers and their families.

Does the NZ Pardons Act create a conditional pardon ?

A conditional pardon generally substitutes one punishment for another, the latter a lesser sentence (see the granting of a conditional pardon by royal prerogative in Lt Tracey's Case 1923, - Note: Lt Tracey's conditional pardon mitigated his sentence only and did not vacate the original courts-martial verdict: Officers Pardoned WW1). The New Zealand Pardons Act cannot be construed as granting either an unconditional or a conditional pardon and has the effect as indicated. Whether, if the soldiers were still alive it would be necessary for them to disclose the courts-martial conviction is a moot point, but not one now likely to arise as all had been executed. The ingenuity of the NZ parliamentary draftsman in constructing simple and straightforward text which does not rewrite the history of the NZ Shot at Dawn is exemplified unambiguously in their Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000 where it states in the Preamble:
* In the Great War, 5 soldiers of the New Zealand Expeditionary force were executed, after trial by court martial, for certain offences:
* They were all volunteers;
* One was executed for the offence of mutiny;
* The other 4 were executed for the offence of desertion;
* Their execution was not a fate that they deserved but was one that resulted from (a) the harsh discipline that was believed at the time to required; and (b) the application of the death penalty for military offences, being seen at that time as an essential part of maintaining military discipline;
* The execution of those 5 soldiers brought dishonour to both the soldiers themselves and New Zealand;
* It is now desired to remove, so far as practicable, the dishonour that the execution of those 5 soldiers brought to those soldiers and their families; and set out the Purpose of the Act as:
* The purpose of this Act is to pardon 5 soldiers of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force who served as volunteers in the Great War and who were executed in 1 case for mutiny and in the other 4 cases for desertion; and
* to remove, so far as practicable, the dishonour that the execution of those 5 soldiers brought to those soldiers and their families

This opinion inter alia corroborates the following re the New Zealand Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000

* its purpose was not to overturn the original verdicts;
* its scope and effect is only in so far as practicable,

* and is limited to the soldiers and offences stated in the Act, thereby excluding the so called appalling vista scenario envisaged by the MOD and their support base, i.e. "that the introduction of pardons on the New Zealand model would open the flood gates".

The Act also stipulated that NZ soldier’s memory be restored. The restorative memory paragraph put what the New Zealand Government must do on a parliamentary footing. In Section (C) take such other steps as, in its opinion, are reasonable or desirable to restore the memory of the soldiers granted pardons by this Act. As there was New Zealand parliamentary approval for this measure, it was reasonable in the circumstances to present medals to the families. (In contrast to ordinary rank and file soldiers, some British officers had their convictions and punishments remitted, and were subsequently pardoned and reinstated by Royal Prerogative and later presented with their medals).

The purpose of the New Zealand Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act 2000 was not to overturn the original convictions and the Act did not overturn the original convictions of the NZ Soldiers executed during WW1. In May 2005 Mr Justice Burnton declared in a judicial review application on behalf of Private Harry Farr that although the family lacked the legal grounds for a free pardon he found that there was "room for argument" that he (Private Farr) had been wrongly refused a conditional pardon. Both the New Zealand Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Act September 2000 and the opinion of Mr Justice Burnton in the Farr case May 2005 have together set the political and legal parameters for any future British action on the pardons issue. Therefore, it is envisaged inter alia that the proposed pardons amendment to the Armed Forces Bill 2006 will not overturn the original convictions of those executed.

It is unacceptable that the Irish Government's key role and the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl effort in bringing about this unique change of British policy continues to be disregarded by various scribes. As one was closely involved in the formulation of the Irish Government Report and in the confidential discussions that followed which led to the widening of the scope of the British Pardons amendment any erroneous statement or spin placed on the public record about the separate Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl effort irrespective of source will be vigorously rebutted. It should be noted that previous attempts by those involved in the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign had failed to convince the Irish Government to support the pardons issue indeed their efforts in the UK had been rejected by the British government in 1998 when John Reid MP then Minister for the Armed Forces affirmed his belief in military discipline and declared that he would not grant a generic pardon or permit an independent case-by-case review. In contrast, a separate all Ireland 'Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl' unconnected with the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign set up and based in Dublin was ultimately successful in persuading the Irish authorities to support the issue on behalf of the 26 Irish Shot at Dawn, and they in turn persuaded the British to act through the diplomatic route. Apparently, there are some individuals, authors and other groups only too willing to claim and apportion the credit to others ignoring the Irish Campaign effort entirely, indeed there are still those who credit the success of the Irish SAD Campaign effort directly to the existence of the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign which is grossly unfair to our Irish support base. Consequently in the interests of the historical record we will continue to rebut misunderstandings or misrepresentations etc about our previous campaign effort.

The Farr Case - A Cause Célèbre ?
In a Pro Bono application in May of 2005, Mr Justice Stanley Burnton found that there was 'room for argument' that he (Private Harry Farr) had been wrongly refused a conditional pardon. However Mr Justice Burnton also declared inter alia that the family of Private Farr lacked the legal grounds for a free pardon......thereby ruling out the *free pardon/full pardon option in a leading case which many observers believe to be one of the most deserving of a free pardon/full pardon. Significantly, Mr Justice Burnton's opinion effectively raised the legal bar by setting a precedent insofar as future applications for pardons in world war one execution cases would only be dealt with on the basis of the 'room for argument' principle via the conditional pardon route...legally capping future British political outcomes to the pardons issue. Consequently, the legal limitations of the 'room for argument' principle via the conditional pardon route first enunciated by Mr Justice Burnton in the Farr case in May 2005, are now reflected in the 2006 British Pardons Amendment.. (*A free pardon/full pardon is understood to mean a pardon not encumbered by any expressly stated constraint or weighted legal, parliamentary or royal impediment narrowing its scope or effect).

The Ministry of Defence did not lose the Farr case as asserted by some in the UK. The Farr case had never reached a final conclusion and had not gone forward for a full hearing, indeed the preliminary opinion of Mr Justice Burnton in the initial application in May 2005 had already raised the legal bar to any future action by the British Government/MoD. Rather than resolving the issue the consequence of the Farr application in May 2005 effectively ruled out the full pardon option in all WW1 execution cases and any expected British political response to the Irish Government Report was re-routed and parked down a British legal cul de sac for nearly two years, and not several months as previously stated, thereby taking the pressure off the British Government at a critical time in the Irish campaign. The introduction of the PARDONS FOR SERVICEMEN EXECUTED FOR DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES: RECOGNITION AS VICTIMS OF FIRST WORLD WAR on the 7th November 2006 is the British Government's official response to the Irish Government Report into the execution of the Irish Shot at Dawn 1914-18 encumbered by the limitations set out in May 2005 by Mr Justice Burnton in the Farr application.

It should also be noted that in November 2003 following the initial Irish Government support for the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl effort. A meeting took place in Newcastle, England with the leader of the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign. He gave his assurance that no legal action was envisaged/considered or being taken in the UK, as to do so in our opinion, would have frustrated future Irish Government efforts and divert the Irish campaign down a British legal cul-de-sac. The Irish effort then proceeded on the basis that no legal action was being taken in the UK by the Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign or the UK Families. The legal application in the Farr Case May 2005 (significantly post the presentation of the Irish Government Report in October 2004) patently breached that assurance. As a consequence:

1. the Irish Government Report was diverted down a British legal cul-de-sac before any political response could be extracted from the British Government which suited the MoD agenda at the time;

2. initiated the 'room for argument' principle via the conditional pardon route...legally capping future British political outcomes to the pardons issue;

3. legally and politically ruled out any chance of ever achieving a full pardon for our Irish born Shot at Dawn, to the detriment of our Irish families; and

4. undermined the Irish Shot at Dawn Campaign effort.

It is inconceivable that the British Shot at Dawn Pardons Campaign were unaware of the preparation for the Farr case as expert knowledge was needed to prepare the legal briefs which was only accessible through the UK SAD campaign effort. The facts are, the Farr Pro Bono application in May 2005 is responsible for blocking the full pardon route for all our world war one Shot at Dawn, thereby eliminating the possibility of a full pardon for our Irish Shot at Dawn, to the detriment of our Irish Families, leaving them in a British legal and political vacuum. The Farr case had never reached a final conclusion or gone forward for a full hearing to test their legal argument for a conditional pardon, and for observers in the UK to flag the Farr case as a Cause Célèbre is at the very least imprudent and a British distortion of the facts.

British connections have also commented: "For the first time, former War Veterans' Minister Tom Watson has admitted his meeting with Harris in the summer of 2006 prompted him to force the MoD to change policy and grant her father and other shell-shocked troops a pardon". To state or imply that it was this meeting that forced a change in British Government policy on the WW1 pardons in isolation to all other efforts, is incredibly naive at best, and downright insulting to all involved in supporting the campaign for pardons, in particular, the crucial role of the Irish Government's international diplomatic effort towards the final resolution of the pardons issue.

In conclusion, but for the input of Anglo-Irish division department of foreign affairs and the Shot at Dawn Campaign Irl effort, the support from members of the Oireachtas in Ireland, support from members of the House of Lords and House of Commons in the UK, the essential support of various military connections here in Ireland and abroad, the constructive analysis in books and articles written by journalists and authors world wide, including the production of various television documentaries, and importantly, both the British and Irish government’s priorities were focused at the time on progressing the Northern Ireland peace process to a successful conclusion, there would have been no pardons granted in November 2006 for all 306 servicemen executed for military offences during world war one.

On Tuesday 20th November 2007: the grandnephew of Private Patrick Joseph Downey one of our 26 Irish Born soldiers, Shot at Dawn, submitted his application to Her Majesty, The Queen, for a Royal Pardon for Patrick, stating “In our families opinion, without the added weight of the royal prerogative of mercy such conditional pardon is meaningless”

Rejected petition posthumous pardons for WW1 soldiers wrongly accused of cowardice:

On the 23 March 2013: A petition was submitted during the 2010–2015 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government seeking posthumous pardons for WW1 soldiers wrongly accused of cowardice:

Petition Rejected by the British Government:

Reasoning: It’s about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for. In August 2006, the then Defence Secretary Des Browne announced that with Parliament's support, there would be a general pardon for all 306 men executed in World War One. A new law passed on November 8th 2006 and included as part of the Armed Forces Act has pardoned men in the British and Commonwealth armies who were executed in World War One. The law removes the stain of dishonour with regards to executions on war records. This petition has been rejected as HM Government has already dealt with this issue.