The war pardons proposal has created a good deal of fuss in the UK press and I gather elsewhere (including Canada). I am releasing the following comparative data that I've gathered in order to advance open discussion.

COPYRIGHT JULIAN PUTKOWSKI 8.9.2006:

Researched and collated by UK military historian and broadcaster Julian Putkowski
Julian Putkowski
138, Millfields Road
London E50AD, UK

tel: 0208 986 6202

e-mail: jjputkowski@msn.com]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT MARTIAL OF HENRY FARR

PROCEEDINGS (Verbatim)

PROSECUTION 

1st Witness - No.7284 Reg. Sgt. Major H. LAKING, 1/W.Yorks Regt. sworn states:

On 17th Sept. 1916 about 9 a.m. the accused reported himself to me at the 1st Line Transport - he stated he was sick and had fallen out from his company the night previous on the march up to the trenches. He stated he could not find his Co. Comdr. for permission to fall out. I ordered him to report sick at the Dressing Station. When he returned he stated they would not see him as he was not wounded. I then ordered him to proceed up to the Bn. with the ration party which was going in the evening. The ration party paraded at about 8 p.m. - the accused was present & marched off with it. On arrival at the ration dump Co.Q.M.S. Booth reported to me [that the accused was missing]. On returning the 1st Line T.port about 11 p.m. I saw the accused standing near a brazier. I asked him why he was there. He replied "I cannot stand it". I asked him what he meant - he again replied "I cannot stand it". I told him he would have to go to the trenches that night. He replied "I cannot go". I ordered Co.Q.M.S. Booth take him up to the trenches under escort. After going 500 yards the accused commenced to scream & struggle with his escort. I again warned him that he would have to go to the trenches or be tried for cowardice. He replied "I am not fit to go to the trenches. I then said I would take him to see a Medical Officer - he refused to go, saying "I will not go any further that way". I ordered the escort to take him on - the accused again started struggling and screaming. I ordered the escort to leave him alone when he jumped up and ran back to the 1st Line Tpt. I placed him in charge of a Guard at the 1st Line Transport.

2nd Witness - No.7846 Co.Q.M.S. J.W. Booth 1/W. Yorks Regt. sworn states:

On the 17th Sept. 1916 about 3 p.m. I warned the accused to parade with carrying party at 6 p.m. to go up and join his company in the trenches. The accused paraded and marched off with the ration party. On arrival at the ration dump the accused was absent, having fallen out on the way up without permission. About 9 p.m. I saw the accused near the 1st Line Transport. The Reg. Sgt. Maj. ordered me to take the accused up under escort to the trenches. About 500 yards from the 1st Line Transport the accused became violent, threatened the escort and eventually broke away, returning to the 1st Line Transport. The Reg. Sgt. Major ordered me to place the accused in charge of a Guard.

3rd Witness - No.6385 Pte, D. Farrar, 1st W. Yorks. Regt. sworn, states:

On 17th Sept. 1916 about 11.30 p.m. I was ordered by Co.Q.M.S. Booth to form part of an escort to take the accused up to his company in the Trenches. After going about 500 yards the accused started struggling and saying he wanted to see a Doctor - the Sgt. Maj. said he would see one when he got a bit further up. The accused refused to go any further. I tried to pull him along. The Sgt. Maj. told me to let go and the accused then went back to the 1st Line Transport.

4th Witness - No.8120 L.Cpl. W. Form 1/W Yorks Regt. sworn states:

On 17th Sept. 1916 about 11.30 p.m. I was detailed by Co.Q.M.S. Booth to take the accused up to the Trenches from the 1st Line Transport. After going 500 yds. the accused became violent & started shouting and eventually broke away from the escort. We followed him and found him at the 1st Line Transport. The Reg. Sgt. Maj. then ordered me to be in charge of a guard over the accused.

DEFENCE

1st Witness - The Accused. No.8871 Private H. Farr 1/W Yorks. Regt. sworn states:

On 16th Sept. 1916 when going up to the trenches with my Company I fell out sick. I could not find the Co. Officer to obtain permission or the Sergt. I asked has now been wounded. I went back to the 1st Line Transport arriving there about 2 a.m. on 17th September 1916. I would have reported at once to the Reg. Sgt. Maj. only I was told he was asleep. I reported about 9 a.m. on 17th Sept. The Sergt. Maj. told me to go to the advanced dressing station - they however would not see me there as I was not wounded. The Sgt. Maj. told me to go up with the ration party at night.

I started with this party & had to fall out sick - I could not get permission as I was in the rear & the Sergt. Maj. was in front, but left word with a Private soldier.

I returned to the 1st Line Tpt. hoping to report sick to some medical officer there. On the Sgt. Major's return I reported to him & said I was sick & could not stand it. He then said, "You are a fucking coward & you will go to the trenches. I give fuck all for my life & I give fuck all for guns & I'll get you fucking well shot". The Sergt. Maj., Co.Q.M.S. Booth, & Pte. Farrar then took me up towards the Trenches. We went about a mile when we met a carrying party returning under L.Cp. Form - the Sergt. Maj. asked L.Cp. Form where I was & he replied, "Run away, same as he did last night". I said to the Sergt. Major "You have got this all made up for me".

The Sgt. Maj. then told L. Cp. Form to fall out two men & take me up to the Trenches. They commenced to shove me - I told them not to as I was sick enough as it was. The Sgt. Maj. then grabbed my rifle & said, "I'll blow your fucking brains out if you don t go". I then called out for an officer but there were none there. I was then tripped up & commenced to struggle. After this I do not know what happened until I found myself back in the 1st Line Transport under a guard. If the escort had not started to shove me about I would have gone up to the Trenches: it was on account of their doing this that I commenced to struggle.

Cross examined by Prosecutor:

Q: Did you have an opportunity of reporting sick between 16th Sept. & 2nd October?

A: Yes - after I was put under arrest on 18th September.

Questioned by the Court:

Q: Why did you not report sick after 18th September up to the present date?

A: Because being away from the shell fire, I felt better.

DEFENCE

2nd Witness - No.9234 Serg. J. Andrews 1st W/Yorks Regt. sworn, states:

The accused reported sick with nerves about April 1916 - the medical officer detained him for a fortnight in the dressing station. He reported again for the same cause on 22.7.16 and was detained for the day, being discharged to duty the following day. The medical officer, Capt. Evans RAMC, who saw him has been wounded.

[signed] F. Spring Lt.Col. Presdt. F.G.C.M. 2.X.16

EVIDENCE AS TO CHARACTER

1st Witness - Lt. & Adjt. W. Paul 1st W. Yorks. Regt. sworn states:

I produce A.F.B. 122 and a copy of same. Accused has 6 years service of which 1 11/12 yrs. has been spent in France. 

2nd Witness - 2 Lieut. L. P. Marshall 1st W. Yorks. Regt. sworn, states:

I have known the accused for the last 6 weeks. On working parties he has three times asked for leave to fall out & return to camp as he could not stand the noise of the artillery. He was trembling & did not appear in a fit state

Army Form A.F.B. 122 [Conduct Sheet]

Name: Farr, H.T. 

Corps: West Yorkshire 

Date of Enlistment: 8 - 5 - 08

Place: Hursley Park

Date of Offence: 1 Nov 1914    

Offence: Overstaying his pass from 1 Nov 1914 midnight until 7.30 p.m. 3.11.14

Witnesses: L.C Kente; Sgt. Barker

Punishment awarded: 10 Days CB / Forfeits 3 days pay by. Lt.Col. Phillips

(signed) M.B. Riall Capt.

Certified true copy: W. Paul Lieut. & Adjt. 1st Bn. West Yorkshire Regt.

[signed] F. Spring Lt. Col. / Pres. F.G.C.M. 2.X.16

Certificate: 8871 Pte. FARR: I certify that the marginally named man is fit to undergo the strain of trial by Field General Court Martial.

[signed] W. Williams Captain RAMC

M.O. i/c 1st Battalion West Yorkshire Regiment

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: the Adjutant, 1st West Yorks.

I hereby certify that I examined No.8871 Pte. H. Farr, 1st West Yorks on Oct. 2nd 1916 & that in my opinion his general physical & mental condition were ["good" has been crossed out - jjp] satisfactory.

7/10/16 W.Williams M.O. i/c 1st W.Y. 6th Division.       Forwarded.

Reports attached: present C.O. is new and does not know the man's Previous record.

[signed] Bridgeford Brig. Genl. Comdg. 18 I.B. 7.10.16

Report on 8871 Pte. Farr, H. 1st West Yorkshire Regt. 

This man came out with the 2nd Bn. West Yorkshire Regt. 5.11.14 & was sent down to the Base with shell shock 9.5.15. He joined the 1st Bn. West Yorkshire Regt. 20.10.15. He remained continuously with this Bn. until his trial by F.G.C.M.

I cannot say what has destroyed this man's nerves, but he has proved himself on many occasions incapable of keeping his head in action & likely to cause a panic.

Apart from his behaviour under fire, his conduct & character are very good.

A Wilson, Capt. OC A Coy, 1st West York. Regt.

9.45 pm 7.10.16

6th Division.



Forwarded. Reports attached present C.O. is new and does not know the man's Previous record.



[signed] Bridgeford Brig. Genl. Comdg. 18 I.B. 7.10.16

I certify that No: 8871, Private HARRY FARR of 1st Bn: West Yorkshire Regiment was executed by shooting at 6 a.m. on 18th October, 1916, at CARNOY. Death was instantaneous.

[signed] A. Anderson Capt. R.A.M.C. M.O. i/c 6th D.A.C.

NOTES RE: Personalities:

Frederick Gordon SPRING DSO CMG DSO psc (born 25.7.1878) was commissioned in the Lincolnshire Regiment 7.5.1898 and served with them in the Boer War. In April 1915 he became a Major and 30.6.16 became Acting Lt. Col. of the 11th Essex Regiment. His service in the First World War included a brief spell as an Embarkation Officer in August and September 1914 but otherwise he served as a Brigade Major and Staff Officer (GSO3/GSO2). After 1918 Spring became Colonel of the 1 Bn. Lincolnshire Regiment and AQMG Southern Command. [Who's Who; Army List]

James JONES MC (born 20.6.1879) served in the ranks for 19 years 134 days. He was promoted 2nd Lt. in the Durham Light Infantry 1.10.14; Lt. 3.5.15; Temporary Captain 28.11.15. Jones was promo

ted to Major (6.4.17) and served with the Shropshire Light Infan

try; Bedfordshire and Norfolk Regiments during the remainder of the War. [Public Record Office WO329]

C.A.V. NEWSOME MC seems to have joined the Army at the outbreak of war, arriving in France on 11.9.15. He had a wartime commission as Lieutenant in 14th Durham Light Infantry and was later promoted to (temporary) Major and was badly wounded. There is some evidence that he may have died 13.10.25. [Public Record Office WO329]

Joseph ANDREWS was a regular soldier who spent his career with the 1st Bn. West Yorks. He was awarded the Military Medal 7.6.16. It is very likely that he was a Boer War veteran and he had served in France since 8.9.14. Some time after Farr s trial Andrews was promoted 2nd Lieutenant. [Public Record Office WO329]

Herbert LAKING DCM MC was a regular soldier who had arrived in France with Andrews. Laking succeeded Andrews as RSM with the 1st West Yorks and was promoted to Warrant Officer before the end of the War. [Public Record Office WO329]

William FORM was a regular soldier who had spent the early part of the War in the Balkan campaign and was transferred to France. He was promoted to Acting Corporal but was killed in action some time after Farr's trial. [Public Record Office WO329/-]

David FARRAR was a regular soldier who arrived in France on 19 September 1914. He later served with the Royal Engineers. [Public Record Office WO329]

Alfred James Downs SIMEY arrived in France on 21.3.16. He had a temporary commission as Captain with the Army Service Corps and served with 6th Divisional Ammunition Column. [Public Record Office WO329]

William PAUL (born 24.8.1876) served in the ranks for 20 years 96 days, latterly as a RSM of the 1st Bn. West Yorks. He was promo

ted 2nd Lieutenant on 16.12.15. He had been made Temporary Lt. and Adjutant of 1st West Yorks. 14.8.16. Some time after Farr s trial Paul was awarded the MC. [Public Record Office WO329]

John Willie BOOTH (born 21.1.1887) served 12 years 186 days in the ranks before he was eventually commissioned on 17.7.17. He had arrived in France on 8.9.14 as a regular NCO with the 1st West Yorks. Booth served the latter part of the War as a temporary Lieutenant with the 8th Bn. Yorks & Lancs. Regt. [Public Record Office WO329]

D.B. CHILES-EVANS RAMC was the Medical Officer of the 1st Bn. West Yorks. and was slightly wounded near Ginchy on 17.9.16.[1st West Yorks War Diary, Public Record Office WO95/1614]

W. WILLIAMS RAMC joined the 1st West Yorks for duty on 17.9.16, replacing Evans. [ibid.]

Sir Frederick CAVAN (1865 - 1946) at the time of Farr's trial was GOC 14th Corps. [Who's Who]

Lord Henry Seymour RAWLINSON (1864 - 1925) was GOC 4th Army at the time of Farr s trial. [Who's Who]

Robert James BRIDGEFORD CMG DSO (born 10.3.1869) was originally a 2nd Lt. in the Militia. He rose to the rank of Major with the Manchester Regiment, and served in the Boer War. He transferred to the Shropshire Light Infantry in 1905, served in Egypt during 1908 and was promoted Lt. Colonel in February 1914. He was promo

ted to Temporary Brig. General 14.8.15. [Army List]

Charles ROSS CB DSO (born 10.3.1864) was a General's son who was commissioned joined the Norfolk Regt. in 1884. He served in Egypt (1893-4) and at the Staff College (1897-9), Woolwich (1904-8), Sandhurst (1905-8), Staff College (1908-19). A Boer War veteran, he commanded 6th Division during the First World War. [Who's Who]

NOTEES:

Case of Pte. Harry Farr

1) He was undefended and there is no evidence that he was even given the opportunity to request that a defending officer be provided.

2) It seems to have been common knowledge that Farr was suffering from a medical condition that was then known as shellshock and is nowadays termed post traumatic stress disorder. Knowledge about the effects of shellshock was well known, even to senior military commanders (e.g. General Hunter Weston).

It would seem reasonable to conclude that Farr's Commanding Officer was negligent in allowing the soldier anywhere near the front line. The neglect of Pte. Farr contrasts sharply with comments by Col. B.H. Scott, ADMS 6th Division, about an officer named St. Brocr.

St. Brocr, Scott reported, had spent 15 months in the trenches, was "simply tired out, and wants prolonged change in England among friends - rest in a Hospital or Convalescent Home".

On 4th September 1916, a fortnight before Farr's fatal offence, Scott sent St. Brocr to a Hospital with a letter, declaring the officer to be "anaemic and washed out".

The court was similarly negligent, in that it never made any effort to explore the role Farr's medical condition may have had on his behaviour at the time of the offence with which he was charged.

3) The court accepted evidence presented by the Prosecution without question, even though when the Defence contradicted it.

4) The senior officers responsible for confirming the court s sentence accepted hearsay in their contribution to Harry s execution.

5) Captain Wilson's positive estimation of Harry's character and his virtually unblemished disciplinary record were nullified by his Brigade Commander and negative gossip transmitted by his Divisional Commander to Lt. General Cavan.

Family Background

According to the 1901 Census, Francis Leader lived with his grandmother Frances B. Leader (59) born St. Clements, Cambridge, a widow, residing at 31 St Clements Hill, Norwich. The household also contains his two (both unmarried) uncles: Alan E. Leader (38) a land agent s clerk, born Winterton, Lincs) and Frank H. Leader (34) a solicitor s clerk ,born Birkenhead, Cheshire, and his (unmarried) aunt Amy Ethel Leader (29), born in Norwich. Francis Misson Leader is entered as grandson, aged 7, born in Norwich.

Francis father, Frederick Leader, born circa 1865 in Stamford, Lincolnshire and Frances Phillis. Leader (nee Rotherham,) (30),a school teacher who had been born in 1872 in the village of Hethersett, Norfolk. . residing at the (Chemical) Manure Works, where Frederick is employed as a Clerk. Their other two children are: Phyllis Margaret. Leader (b. 1896) and Charles Frederick. Leader (b. 1898).

Canadian Army attestation documents (online) note the following about Francis Leader: Resident in Saskatoon, Law Student, unmarried, born 6.1.1891, New Catton, Norwich, UK. Next of Kin: Frances Phyllis Leader (mother), resident: Haddiscoe, Gt. Yarmouth, England. Previous military service: x3 years King s Own Norfolk Regiment. Enlists Saskatoon Regt., 26.10.1914. Medical notes indicate: 23 years & 9 months, 36 inch chest & 2 ½ expansion; fair complexion; grey eyes; light hair; mole on right shoulder. Church of England.

The same sources also reveal that Francis Leader re-enlisted 20.7.15 as a Lieutenant, 65 Overseas Bn. [endorsed by Acting O.C.,105 Regt. (Saskatoon Fusiliers)]. His attestation documents indicate that his occupation has changed and that he decalred himself to be an accountant, though still resident in Saskatoon. Leader was also a married man, his wife, Sarah was recorded as next of kin(Frances Phyllis Leader is crossed out,). Leader also maintained that he had two years' previous military service with the Norfolk Yeomanry.

There is a discrepancy between Leader's declared age, as recorded on his birth certificate and the age noted in his attestation documents. This may be accounted for by the age of majority (21). Being aged 21 would have been useful for the purposes of employment as a professional man, for signing legal documents, let alone better pay  and possibly for getting married.

Notes re: Francis Leader's war service

3 years experience with Officers Training Corps Schools in UK

3 years with Norfolk Imperial Yeomanry

4 years Canadian Militia (105 Regt. Saskatoon Fusiliers)

Joins 28 Bn Winnipeg but after 2 months Leader is medically discharged.

Went back to Saskatoon & gained a commission in 105 Regt.

Leader is designated 65 Bn CEF Signalling Officer

End of June 1916 arrives in UK ex Canada. Posted to 72 Bn. CEF

August 1916 returns to 72 Bn. from leave. Fails to attend battalion parades  Leader tells Adjutant that he s unwell and has been staying with his wife. OC 12 Brigade The 12 Brigade commander (Brigadier General L.G.F.M. Lord Brooke  MacBrien takes over on 20 September 1916) is told by Leader his Canadian militia experience was confined to signalling and that he was suffering from an (unspecified) disability. Noted by Bn. M.O. that Leader was

not robust or strong .

Circa 1 October 1916 Leader sent overseas to join 72 Bn. at Warloy.

After arriving at Tara Hill, Lt. Leader as assigned command of a working party but subsequently rejoins battalion.

O.C. Bn. : On or about October 10th, he came to me and asked me not to send him on working parties as he could not stand shell fire and was afraid of disgracing himself and the Battalion. I then told him to see the Medical Officer. He later reported to me that he had applied for a Medical Board, and was placing the accused on Light Duty.

When Leader

wifully disobeys , his battalion is at Tara Hill trenches, near Bouzincourt.

Death Sentence commuted to 10 years Penal Servitude by F-M Haig.

Francis Leader is released from Portland Jail: Sentence Suspended 14.12.18 (TNA: PCOM 6)

Lieutenant Francis Misson LEADER 72 Infantry Battalion CEF 332-122-50 / No. 311 GCM: Lealvillers, 29 November 1916

Francis Misson Leader By War Office letter No. 121/L/1288 (A.G.3.). dated 14th December 1918, the Army Council remitted as from the 18th December 1918 the portion of the term of penal servitude then unexpired.

(signature: A.M. Henderson-Scott) Lieut-Colonel

Assistant Adjutant General

War Office, London S.W.1

23rd December 1918

Confidential / A.G. 2d 8-L-150 [c]

MEMORANDUM

Ex-Lieut. F.M. Leader, 72nd Bn. 

The following facts appear from a perusal of the attached documents:

1. This ex-officer was tried by a General Court Martial at Lealvillers, France on the 24th November 1916.

2. The court was convened by Major General Sir David Watson, C.B., G.O.C., 4th Canadian Div.

3. The following officers, all Canadians, composed the court:

President: Br. Gen. V.W. Odlum D.S.O., Commanding 11th Can. Inf. Bde.

Members:

Lt. Col. A.H.G. Kemball CB. Commanding 54th Can. Battalion

Lt. Col. C.M. Edwards Commanding 38th Can. Battalion

Lt. Col. Jas Kirkcaldy Commanding 78th Can. Battalion

Major C.C. Harbottle 67th Can. Battalion (Pioneers)

Major T.C. Irving, D.S.O., C.E. A/C.R.E., 4th Can. Div.

4. The accused was defended by Counsel.

5. He was charged under section 9, (1) of the Army Act, with disobeying, in such a manner as to show wilful defiance of authority, a lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office. He was also charged with the alternative under section 9, (2) of the Army Act with while on active service, disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer. The accused was found guilty of the first charge, but not guilty of the second, and sentenced to suffer death by being shot.

6. The offence was committed on 11th November 1916.

7. The prosecution proved beyond any doubt that the accused had been ordered on the 11th November 1916, both by his Company commander, and the officer commanding his battalion, to parade with his company for the trenches, but, having stated that he understood the consequences of the disobedience of such an order did not parade. There is no doubt from the evidence that he deliberately disobeyed the order. Nor did he give any reasons or excuses for refusing to obey the order.

8. The accused did not give evidence himself, nor did he call witnesses on his own behalf but made a verbal statement not under oath (see proceedings, page 37)

9. From this statement and by the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, it would appear that his defence was that he was not physically fit, having been put on light duty by the medical officer on the 19th October previously. The Medical Officer states that when he saw the accused on the 19th October he was then unfit for continued active service in the line. The medical officer made an application for a board, which, however, was not held. The medical officer did not see the accused professionally again from the 19th October to the 11th November, but although he saw him several times on the morning of the 11th November, the accused did not consult him. (see Proceedings, page 29)

10. On the other hand, Col. H.A. Chisholm, the A.D.M.S., 4th Division, examined the accused on the 12th November  the day after the offence was committed  and in his opinion the accused was fit for duty in the trenches. (See Proceedings, Page 33)               

11. Sir David Watson, the convening officer, in forwarding the Proceedings of the court to te G.O.C., Second Corps, stated: It is my opinion that the verdict rendered is in accordance with the evidence given. Further I am of the opinion that the Medical Officer of the 72nd Battalion should have taken proper steps that the Medical Board application should have been forwarded to the ADMS, who does not state having received same. This point, however, does not warrant the accused to deliberately disregard and order given personally by his commanding officer. I recommend that the sentence of

Extreme Penalty be carried out. (Flag A).           

 2. The G.O.C. Canadian Corps, in forwarding the proceedings to the Army stated: I recommend that sentence of the court be carried out. (Flag B).

13. The G.O.C., 1st Army, in forwarding to the A.G., at General Headquarters stated: I recommend that the sentence of the court be put into execution for the reason that the defiance of the order was wilful and deliberate and no attempt was made by the officer to explain to his commanding officer that he considered himself to be still on

Light Duty as a reason for objecting to comply with the order. (Flag C).

14. The A.G., General Headquarters, required further information (see latter flagged D), This information is furnished by the G.O.C., 4th Canadian Division (see latter flagged E).

15. The GOC, First Army, in returning the Proceedings to the A.G. General Headquarters, stated: After a very careful study of the evidence, I form the following conclusions:

(a) Lieut. Leader understood what he was doing and the probable consequences of his action:

(b) There is justification for the assumption that the refusal was due to cowardice:

(c) There are grounds for some slight doubt regarding his mental balance.

In my opinion, this doubt, slight as it is, turns the scale, and I do not recommend the extreme penalty The offence, however, more especially in the case of an officer, is very serious and calls for exemplary punishment. I consider that a long term of Penal Servitude should be imposed. (Flag G).

16. The Field Marshal in Chief, Sir Douglas Haig, confirmed the finding and sentence, but commuted the sentence of death to that of being cashiered and to suffer penal servitude for ten years.

17. These Proceedings have been carefully examined by the officers above mentioned and their legality passed upon by the Deputy Judge Advocate General, London, and the sentence as commuted was confirmed by His Majesty the King.

Argyll House, W.1.

11th June 1918

Proceedings of a General Court Martial held at LEALVILLERS, FRANCE on the 29th day of November 1916 by order of Major General D.WATSON, C.B., commanding 4th Canadian Division dated 24th day of November 1916

PRESIDENT         Brigadier General V.W. ODLUM, D.S.O., Commanding 11th Canadian Infantry Brigade is appointed President.

MEMBERS

Lieut-Colonel A.H.G. KEMBALL, C.B. Commanding 54th Canadian Battalion

Lieut-Colonel C.M. EDWARDS Commanding 38th Canadian Battalion

Lieut-Colonel James KIRKCALDY Commanding 78th Canadian Battalion

Major O.C. HARBOTTLE 67th Canadian Battalion (Pioneers)

Major T.C. IRVING, D.S.O., C.E. A, C.R.E., 4th Canadian Division

Lieut. J.S. GRIFFITH-JONES, Judge Advocate, 10th Bn. South Wales Borderers

TRIAL OF LIEUTENANT F.M. LEADER, 72ND CANADIAN BATTALION

At 10 a.m. the Trial commences:

(1) The order convening the Court is read, and is marked, signed by the president, and attached to the proceedings. The charge sheet and the summary of evidence are laid before the Court. The courts satisfy themselves as provided by the Rules of Procedure 22 & 23.         

(2) Lieut. A.P. FOSTER, 72nd Canadian Battalion appears as prosecutor and takes his place. The above Named, the accused, is brought before the Court. Captain A. Leighton, 12 Canadian T.M. Battery appears as counsel for the accused.

The names of the President and members of the Court are read over in the hearing of the accused, and they severally answer to their names.

1 Q: Do you object to being tried by me as president, or by any of the officers whose names you have heard read over?

1 A: No.

The president, members, and judge advocate are duly sworn

The charge sheet is signed by the president, marked B2 and annexed to the proceedings

The accused is arraigned on each charge in the above-mentioned charge sheet.

2 Q: Are you guilty or not guilty of the [first] charge against you, which you have heard read?

2 A: Not Guilty

3 Q: Are you guilty or not guilty of the second (alternative) charge against you, which you have heard read?

3 A: Not Guilty

CHARGE SHEET

The ACCUSED, Lieutenant FRANCIS MISSON LEADER, 72nd CANADIAN INFANTRY BATTALION, CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, an Officer of the REGULAR FORCES and doing duty in the Field, is charged with 

SECTION 9 (1) Army Act DISOBEYING IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO SHOW WILFUL DEFIANCE OF AUTHORITY, A LAWFUL COMMAND GIVEN PERSONALLY BY HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS OFFICE, In that he, In the Field on the 11th day of November, 1916, when ordered personally by Lieut-Colonel J.A. CLARK, Commanding 72nd. Canadian Infantry Battalion, to parade with his company at 2.30 p.m. on the 11th day of November, 1916, for the trenches, having stated that he understood the consequences of the disobedience of such an order, but that he did not think that he would be on parade, did not parade.

Alternative Charge: SECTION 9 (2) Army Act WHEN ON ACTIVE SERVICE  DISOBEYING A LAWFUL COMMAND GIVEN BY HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER,

In that he, In the Field on the 11th November, 1916, did not parade with his company for the trenches at 2.30 p.m., when ordered to do so by Lieut-Colonel J.A. CLARK, Commanding 72nd CANADIAN INFANTRY BATTALION.

(signature: J.A. Clark) Lieut-Colonel,

Commanding 72nd. Battalion, Canadian Infantry.

Proceedings on a Plea of Not Guilty

First Witness for the Prosecution: Captain R.K. Johnston 72nd Battn. Canadian Infantry being duly sworn is examined by the prosecutor:

I am in command of

B Company 72nd Battalion, Canadian Infantry. The accused is a member of my company

*Objection to the above evidence. During the reading of this witnesses evidence the accused s counsel objected to this witness giving evidence relating to any order given to the accused other than that specified in the Charge Sheet. The Court overruled the objection & proceeded with the hearing of the witness as recorded above.

About 10 a.m. on the 11th November 1916 I instructed the accused to get ready for parade for the trenches that afternoon. The company was this was made and then stationed in Bivouacs at POZIERES. The accused replied that he did not intend to parade for the trenches. I repeated the order & the accused replied,

You can put me under arrest. I do not intend to go into the trenches.

I warned the accused a third time, saying,

Get ready to go into the trenches this afternoon. I then left him

About 12.00 noon I made a report to the adjutant concerning the accused s action. The company paraded to go up to the trenches at 3.00 p.m. . I was on parade. The accused did not parade. The accused was absent.

Cross-examined by accused s counsel:

I knew that prior to the time in question the accused had been placed on

Light Duty by the Medical Officer. I understood that he was waiting for a Medical Board. I knew that

Light Duty had been recommended by the Medical Officer on or about the 19th Oct. 1916.

B Company had been in the trenches for one tour in the interval between the 19th Oct. and the 11th Nov. 1916. Accused was left behind with the details & he did not go up to the trenches.

I cannot say on what grounds the accused was left behind on that occasion. It was I who warned the accused, he did not come to me first or complain of going up to the trenches. 

Prosecution declines to re-examine.

Examined by the Court:

When the accused refused to parade he merely said,

I decline to go up to the trenches. He gave no reasons or excuses for his declining & I asked him for no reasons. I did not ask for any reasons for I understood that accused was waiting for a Medical Board.

4 Q: Did you expect the accused to give a refusal to your order?

4 A: No. I though it an extraordinary thing for him to refuse to obey the order but I did not ask him

why? I expected him to onject but not refuse & that is why I repeated the order.                     

5 Q: Did the accused at any time on the 11th Nov. parade with his company for the Trenches & did he at any time on that date go up to the trenches?

5 A: No, to both questions.

6 Q: Between the time of being placed on

Light Duty on the 19th Oct. & the 11th Nov., had the accused done any duty other than what might be termed

Light Duty ?

6 A: No.

His evidence is read to the witness. R.P. 83 (B) is complied with.

The witness then withdraws.

2nd Witness for the Prosecution: Lieut. Colonel J.A. Clark, 72nd Battn. Canadian Infantry being duly sworn is examined by the Prosecutor:

I am in command of the 72nd Battalion Canadian Infantry, to which the accused belongs.

On the 10th Nov. 1916 I issued a list of names of the officers who were to proceed up to the trenches on the following day. Accused was one of the officers who was to go up. On the 11th Nov. about 11.30 o c. a.m. a report was made to me by the Adjutant concerning the accused. In consequence of this report I went to the accused s quarters. I was accompanied by my second in command & the Adjutant

On arrival there I called the accused outside & said to him,

I understand Mr. Leader, that you have stated that you do not propose to go into the trenches. Is that correct? The accused replied,

Yes.

I said,

It is my own personal order that you should go in. Do you understand that? Accused replied,

Yes. 

I said,

I want you to be perfectly clear on the subject & I propose to go over the matter with you fully so that there shall be no misunderstanding. Your company is parading at 2.30 p.m. this afternoon & you are to be on parade with it & you are to go into the trenches. Do you understand that? Accused replied,

Yes. I then said,

You have considerable time now and you are perfectly free to go ahead & make the necessary arrangements. Do you understand that? Accused replied,

Yes.

I next said,

Do you understand what the consequences will be if you disobey that order? Accused replied,

I understand. It is the extreme penalty or words to that effect.

I again impressed upon the accused that he was perfectly free to go ahead & make preparations for going up to the trenches. The accused replied,

I appreciate the consideration you have shown me but I do not think that I will be on parade. I then left the accused.

Cross-examined by accused s counsel:

7 Q: Did you know that the accused had been placed on

Light Duty on the 19th Oct.?

7 A: I am not sure whether I knew at the time or not. I knew that I had sent him to the Doctor.            

8 Q: Did you consider accused physically fit on the day in question to go into the Trenches?

8 A: I did not consider that question at the time. I would not have advised him to go up had I not considered the accused fit.

9 Q: Did you know that a Medical Board had been applied for?

9 A: Yes. I had received a report from the M.O. to that effect.

10. Q: Was your order given with a view to forcing an issue as to the accused s medical fitness for going up to the trenches.

10 A: No

11 Q: How long have you known the accused?

11 A: About 2 months. One month in England & one in France, with an interval of 3 months between

12 Q: Do you consider the accused to be in full possession of all his mental faculties?

12 A: I consider the accused to be weak. I do not consider him to be mentally normal.

Prosecutor declines to re-examine the witness.

Examined by the Court:

I cannot remember why the accused did not go to the trenches on the tour between the 19th Oct. & the 11th Nov. I was not aware when I gave the order that the accused had only been doing

Light Duty from the 19th Oct. up to the time of my order.

When I gave my order on the 11th Nov. the accused did not give any reasons for his refusal or give any grounds for so refusing, He merely said,

I do not think I will be on parade. I had had 2 reports from the M.O. concerning the accused s physical condition, one at BRAMSHOTT in August & one about 19th Oct..

I did not ask the accused for his reasons for refusing to comply with my order. I am not accustomed to asking reasons for disobeying my order.

The witness on his evidence being read out to him makes the following explanation When I said just now,

I consider the accused to be weak. I did not understand the question to be confined to a question of his mentality. (This answer refers to Question & answer No.12 above.)

Neither the Accused s Friend or the Prosecutor desire to ask any questions on this explanation.

His evidence is read to the witness. R.P. 83 (B) is complied with. The witness withdraws.

3rd Witness for the Prosecution: Major D.D. Young 72nd Bn. Canadian Infy. Being duly sworn is examined by the Prosecutor & states:

I am Adjutant of the 72nd Can. Infy. [Bn.]. About 12.00 noon on the 11th Nov. 1916 I received a report concerning the accused from Captain Johnston. In consequence of this report I went to the accused & said to him,

Are you going to parade with your company? Accused replied, No. I then told him to remain where he was & I reported the matter to Col Clark. On this Lt. Col. Clark, Major Wilson & I went to the accused at his quarters. The Colonel asked the accused,

If he fully realised what he was doing in refusing to parade with his company? The accused replied.

I quite realise. The Colonel then asked the accused,

If he knew what the penalty was for disobeying might be? Accused replied,

I fully understand & at the same time,

He thanked the Colonel for the consideration shown & for explaining the full consequences to him. Colonel Clark then said,

You are free to make your own arrangements from now until the parade hour at 2.30 p.m.. I want you to be on parade, or words to that effect.

At 4.30 p.m. after the accused s company had marched off from the parade ground I noticed that the accused had not gone with his company. I then went to his quarters & found accused there. I placed him under close arrest.

Cross-examined by accused s counsel:

Captain Johnston did not tell me why the accused declined to go to the trenches.

The accused had been placed on

Light Duty sometime before. I had heard on the 19th Oct.

That the accused was waiting for a Medical Board, but I had heard nothing further of it. I had not discussed either of these matters that day before Col. Clark had spoken to the accused.

I did not connect the accused s refusal with the fact that he had been on Light Duty. I knew that between the 19th Oct. & the 11th Nov. the accused had only been doing

Light Duty around the camp. I did not ask the accused, as to why he refused to obey the C.O. s order? I presumed he had some reason, but I did not enquire. I did not know the reason for his refusal . I presumed that he had been warned for parade that the accused was no longer on

Light Duty.

Prosecutor declines to cross-examine.

Examined by the Court:

The accused had not been sent by me to the M.O., nor was any application sent in through me for a Medical Board. There was no official record with me that the accused was on

Light Duty. The accused did not request to see the M.O. on the 11th November, nor did he make any complaint about his health.

His evidence is read to the witness. R.P. 83 (B) is complied with and the witness withdraws.

4th Witness for the Prosecution:

Lieut. A.C. Lumsden, 72nd Battn. Canadian Infy. Is called by the Prosecutor & offered for cross-examination, but the accused s counsel declines to ask him any questions. The witness withdraws.

5th Witness for the Prosecution:

Major A.D. Wilson 72nd Battn. Canadian Infantry being duly sworn is examined by the Prosecutor & states:

I am second in command of the 72nd Battn.. On the 11th November I was present at the interview between the commanding officer, Col. Clark and the accused. I heard Col. Clark say to the accused,

I warn you to parade with your company this afternoon at 2.30 p.m. to go to the Trenches. Col Clark further said to the accused:

Do you realise what the consequences might be if you refuse to obey the order.? The accused replied,

I do.

Col. Clark then said,

You are perfectly free to make any arrangements that are necessary. The accused then said,

I thank you for your consideration in warning me, but I do not expect to be on Parade. 

Cross-examined by the accused s counsel:

I know that sometime prior to this that the accused had been on

Light Duty but it did not cross my mind at the time, & the accused did not mention it. I have known the accused altogether in broken periods for about 2 months. The accused was left behind at BRAMSHOTT in August & placed on the Base Company. I understand this was because he was

medically unift. I cannot pass an opinion as to the accused s mentality but he has always struck me as acting in an absurd manner. His manner was unusual for an officer. The accused had no idea of discipline.

His evidence is read to the witness. R.P. 83 (B) is complied with. The witness withdraws.

6th Witness for the Prosecution:

Captain R.T. Wilson Herald, 72nd Bn. Canadian Infantry being duly sworn is examined by Prosecutor & states:

I am the Medical Officer to the 72nd Battalion Canadian Infantry. On the 19th Oct. 1916 I examined the accused Lieut. Leader, who is now present in Court. The accused was then unfit for

continued active service in the Line. He was anaemic, of bad colour, & of poor muscular development. He was generally below par. Accused had a blemish on one of his legs, which appeared to be an old injury to a tendon. I then wrote to the

A.D.M.S. & asked for a Medical Board, but the Board had never been ordered.

I also recommended that the accused should be placed on

Light Duty , pending the Medical Board which I then expected to be held in the course of a few days. I did not see the accused professionally again from the 19th Oct. to the 11th Nov. & though I saw him several times on the morning after 11th November, he did not consult me.

When I saw accused on the 19th Oct. I told accused

that for the following few days, pending the verdict of the Medical Board, I would recommended him for Light Duty. I did not intend the accused to be on Light Duty indefinitely, but only for a few days. I have not examined the accused since the 19th Oct., but I took it for granted that he was not on Light Duty the whole time.

Cross examined by accused s counsel:

In the accused s case his anaemic condition is probably a chronic one. I have had no opportunity of studying the accused s mental condition & therefore offer no opinion. I do not think his mental condition is such as to call for an enquiry. I should not have passed the accused as physically fit inVancouver, had I been examining him as a Recruiting Medical Officer.

R.P. 83 (B) is complied with. The witness withdraws

Colonel H.A. Chisholm, C.A.M.C. being duly sworn is examined by the Prosecutor & states:

I am

A.D.M.S. to the 4th Canadian Division. On the 12th November 1916 I examined the accused, Lieut. Leader, who is now in front of the Court. The accused complained

of weakness & pain in his leg. I found a small varicose vain in one of his legs. I considered this to be a trivial matter & not sufficient to cause him any trouble. The accused also complained

of serious debility. I examined him & did not consider his complaint had any foundation. In my opinion the accused was fit for service in the trenches.

Cross-examined by accused s counsel:

The accused may be a mild case of

anaemia but I would not classify him as anaemic. Had I been a Recruiting Medical Officer I would have passed the accused

as fit for service. On the 12th November I did not examine the accused very thoroughly as he was sent to me only for an opinion,

as to the leg condition. I examined him at our Forward Dressing Station.

The Prosecution declines to cross-examine.

Examined by the Court:

After I had examined the accused s leg & found him to be sound, the accused raised

the question of his general debility & did not consider there was any foundation for the complaint. Had an application for a Medical Board accompanied the accused when I saw him on the 12th November, I should have sent him back to the Base, where all Medical Boards are held.

His evidence read to the witness. R.P. 83 (B) is complied with. The witness withdraws.

The prosecution is closed.

Question to the accused: Do you apply to give evidence yourself as a witness? Answer: No.

Question to the accused: Have you anything to say in your defence?

The accused in his defence says:

I have had 3 years experience in an Officers Training Corps in ENGLAND, also 3 years in the Norfolk Imperial Yeomanry. I have also had 4 years in the Canadian Militia in the 105th Battalion Saskatoon Fusiliers. After that I went into the 28th Overseas Battalion C.E.F. & was sent to WINNIPEG.After being there 2 months I was rejected by a Medical Board I then went back to SASKATOON to civil life and later obtained a commission in the 105th Regiment & obtained the appointment of signalling officer in the 65th Overseas Battalion. I came overseas to England on the end of June 1916 & was immediately transferred to the 72nd Battalion. I was sent by the C.O. of the 72 Battn. to the Medical Officer & was left with the Base Company being

medically unfit. This was in August 1916 & I remained at the Base until about the 1st October when I was sent to France in charge of a draft expecting to return to England. I was however sent forward & told to report to 72nd Battn. which I did.

Accused s Counsel addresses the Court. Note of the address is marked

M , signed by the President & attached to the Proceedings.

The Prosecutor declines to make a reply.

The Judge Advocate sums up. Note of the Judge Advocate s summing up is signed by the President, marked

N & attached to the Proceedings.

Finding:

The Court is closed for the consideration of the finding:

GUILTY of the First Charge, NOT GUILTY of the Second Charge.

The Court find that the accused Lieutenant Francis Misson Leader 72nd Canadian Infantry Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force is

Guilty of the First Charge &

Not Guilty of the Second (alternative) Charge.

PROCEEDINGS ON CONVICTION before sentencing:

Evidence of character:

The Court being re-opened, the accused is again brought before it, Lieutenant Foster, Assistant Adjutant of 72nd Bn Canadian Infantry is duly sworn.

Question by president: Have you any evidence to produce as to the character and particulars of service of the accused?

Answer by the Witness: I produce a written statement which is handed in.

The above statement is read, marked

M , signed by the President, and annexed to the proceedings.

Question by the president: Is the accused the person named in the statement which you have heard read?

Answer by the witness: Yes       

Have you compared the contents of the above statement with the regimental books?

Answer: No, the Regimental books were not available. The particulars contained in the statement are to the best of my memory and belief are the same having been supplied by Ac[cused?].

Accused s Counsel declines to cross-examine witness. His evidence is read to the witness. R.P. 83(B) is complied with. The witness withdraws.

Question to the accused: Do you wish to address the Court?

Answer: No.

The Court is closed for the consideration of the sentence.

Sentence:

The Court sentence the accused, Lieutenant Francis Misson Leader 72nd Canadian Infantry Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force to suffer DEATH by being shot.

Signed at LEALVILLERS, FRANCE this twenty-ninth day of November 1916.

(signature: V.W. Odlum) Brig. Genl., President.

(signature: J. Stanley Griffith Jones) Judge Advocate

I confirm the finding & sentence but commute the sentence to that of

To be cashiered and to suffer penal servitude for ten years.

(signature: D. Haig) Genl., 14 Dec: 16"

Promulgated and extracts taken in the field this 18th day of December 1916.

(signature: J.H. MacBrien) Brig. Genl., Commanding 12th Canadian Inf. Bde.

Order by Major-General D. Watson, C.B., Commanding 4th Canadian Division, 24 November 1916:

GENERAL COURT MARTIAL: The detail of officers as mentioned below will assemble at Headquarters, 4th Canadian Division, LEALVILLERS, at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 29th inst., for the purpose of trying by General Court Martial the accused person named in the margin, and such other person or persons as may be brought before them.

(LIEUTENANT FRANCIS MISSON LEADER 72nd. Canadian Battalion )

PRESIDENT        

Brigadier General V.W. ODLUM, D.S.O., Commanding 11th Canadian Infantry Brigade is appointed President.

MEMBERS

Lieut-Colonel A.H.G. KEMBALL, C.B. Commanding 54th Canadian Battalion

Lieut-Colonel C.M. EDWARDS Commanding 38th Canadian Battalion

Lieut-Colonel James KIRKCALDY Commanding 78th Canadian Battalion

Major O.C. HARBOTTLE 67th Canadian Battalion (Pioneers)

Major T.C. IRVING, D.S.O., C.E. A, C.R.E., 4th Canadian Division

WAITING MEMBERS

Lieut-Colonel R.W. FROST Commanding 87th Canadian Battalion

Major C. FERGUSON 38th Canadian Battalion

PROSECUTOR

LIEUTENANT A.P.FOSTER, 72nd Canadian Battalion, will act as Prosecutor.

JUDGE ADVOCATE

Lieutenant J.S. GRIFFITH JONES, 10th Battalion, South Wales Borderers has been appointed Judge Advocate.

The Accused will be warned and all witnesses required to attend. The Proceedings will be forwarded to Headquarters, 4th Canadian Division.

Signed this twenty-fourth day of November, 1916.

(signature: E. de B. Panet) Lieutenant Colonel, A.A. & Q.M.G., 4th Canadian Division.

To the President & Members:

The charges differ in some important points, the first charge being considerably the more serious. The essence of the first charge is the defiance of authority  wilful defiance. The evidence shows that the accused had been placed on light duty by the M.O. of his battalion on the 19th of Oct.

for a few days, pending the verdict of a Medical Board. This Board has not yet sat & the accused apparently considered that the light duty continued & that he ought not to be required to go to the trenches. Possibly he even thought that he had the right to refuse to go to the trenches. In either case that would not show an attitude of

wilful defiance of authority. This is borne out by the accused s behaviour & demeanour, which was respectful and deferential in every way, outside of the bare refusal to go to the trenches. I submit therefore that the accused should be acquitted on the first count.

With regard to the second count, I would point out to the Court, that he accused, on Capt. Herold s evidence, is a weakling, and according to Col. Clark & Major Wilson, has something wrong with his mental make-up  something deficient. He has shown a strong anxiety to serve his country, as his former service shows; and if he has fallen down, I submit that he should be leniently dealt with. Whether he could have reached the trenches is open to doubt. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, on my point where the evidence is not clear or where there is no evidence.

A. Leighton, Capt.           

Counsel for the Accused

Note of the Judge Advocate General summing up:

J.A. reads the charges & the Sections of the Army Act, Sec. 9(1) & (2) Directs the attention of the Court to the essential differences & ingredients of the charges, quoting M.M.L. Directs the Court that if they accept the evidence of the Prosecution there is sufficient evidence to support either of the charges. Reviews the evidence to support either of the charges. Reviews the evidence of Capt. Johnston, Lt. Col. Clare, Major Young & other witnesses. Calls attention to the Accused not having denied the Command, or the Disobedience. Points out to the Court that the Defence contends

Justification on the grounds that:

(1) Accused was not fit physically, or mentally fit.

(2) That on the 19th Oct. 1916 Accused was Recommended Light Duty & continued

Light Duty up to the 11th November.

(3) That a Medical Board had been applied for.

 Court is advised that if they think these grounds are sufficient justification they will acquit, but are reminded of the evidence of Doctors Wilson, Herold & Chisholm.    

The J.A. advises them that the only justification in this case for refusing to obey the specific command would be physical or mental inability. If the Court thinks the physical or mental condition of the accused was such that he was unable, or that the accused was not in a fit condition to obey, the Court should acquit on both the charges.       

The facts of

Light Duty having been recommended on the 19th Oct. for the folowing 4 or 5 days &, that a Medical Board having been applied for, would not of themselves be sufficient justification for disobedience. The Court should however take these matters into careful consideration in deciding whether the disobedience amounted to a

Wilful defiance of authority.

J. Stanley Griffith Jones, Lt.

Judge Advocate

29.11.16

O

In the case of Lieutenant Francis Misson Leader, 72nd Battalion  Canadian Infantry:

Theaccused has not been previously convicted. The accused is not under sentence at the present time. The accused has been in confinement awaiting trial on the present charges for 18 days in military custody.

AGE: The present age of the accused is 25.

SERVICE: The accused is in possession of the King George V Coronation Medal.

RANK: The accused holds in the army the ranks of Lieutenant, dated 20 July 1915 and in his Regiment the rank of Lieutenant dates 12th February 1915.

I hereby certify that the particulars contained in the above statement are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the same having been supplied to me by the Accused.     

A.P. Foster, Lieutenant

Public Record Office, Kew - File No: WO71/509

Field General Court Martial at VILLE-SUR-ANCRE, 2 October 1916

Alleged Offender: No.8871 Pte. Harry T. FARR 1st Bn. West Yorkshire Regt.

Offence Charged: Section 4.(7) Army Act (Misbehaving before the enemy in such a manner as to show cowardice)

Plea: Not Guilty

Finding and sentence: Guilty. Death.

President:

          Lt. Col. F. Spring 11th Bn. Essex Regt.

Members:

          Capt. J. Jones 2nd Bn. Durham Light Infantry

          Lt. C. A. V. Newsome 14th Bn. Durham Light Infantry

Convening Officer:

[signed] Bridgeford Brig.Genl. Commanding 18th Infy.Bde.

Confirmed: [signed] D. Haig Genl. 14 Oct: 16

Promulgated and extracts taken this 17th day of October 1916

[signed] A.M. Boyall Major

I certify that the sentence was duly carried out at Carnoy at 6 a.m. on 18th October 1916 [signed] A.J.D. Simey Capt. A.P.M. VI Divn.