chapter twenty-four acting leading seaman ......acting leading seaman ronald ‘buck’ taylor broke...

333Part two — Individual cases

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR ACTING LEADING SEAMAN RONALD TAYLOR24-1 Ronald ‘Buck’ Taylor was born in Carlton, Melbourne,

on 29 April 1918. The fourth of 10 children, Taylor developed an interest in the RAN through watching ships entering port and from talking to sailors about life in the service.1 At the age of seven he was given a uniform, and became the unofficial mascot of the sloop HMAS Marguerite.

24-2 Taylor joined the RAN in 1935, and in the following year was posted to the cruiser HMAS Australia, prior to serving on the destroyer HMAS Vampire and the cruiser HMAS Adelaide.

24-3 Taylor joined the sloop HMAS Yarra on 30 August 1939, seeing action in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. During Yarra’s overseas service, the ship was under the command of Commander Wilfred Hastings Harrington, RAN.

24-4 When war broke out with Japan, Yarra was recalled for duty closer to home. (Acting) Leading Seaman Taylor was the captain of a gun crew when Yarra came under aerial attack while rescuing over 1,800 people from the liner Empress of Asia off Singapore on 5 February 1942. Taylor was mentioned by Commander Harrington in his Report of Proceedings following this action (see paragraph 21-12). Taylor was killed when Yarra was sunk on 4 March 1942. It is these two latter actions that are the subject of this Inquiry.

24-5 The actions of Yarra’s crew on both occasions are discussed in detail in Chapter 21.

Recognition for service24-6 For his naval service, Leading Seaman Taylor was entitled to the following awards:

• 1939–1945 Star

• Africa Star

• Burma Star with Pacific Clasp

• War Medal 1939–1945

• Australia Service Medal 1939–1945.

What has led to the review?24-7 Frustrated that a full account of Yarra’s end was never issued, the brothers of

Acting Leading Seaman Ronald ‘Buck’ Taylor broke into Victoria Barracks in Melbourne sometime around the end of the war to try to find more information,

1 Mr Garry Taylor, Submission 54.

Acting Leading Seaman Ronald Taylor(Photograph courtesy of Mr Garry Taylor)

The report of the inquiry into unresolved recognition for past acts of naval and military gallantry and valour

334

but without success.2 Taylor’s brothers (Ray and Lawrence) also served in the RAN.

24-8 Lobbying for recognition for those serving in Yarra began as early as March 1947, when an article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald.3 Following publication of this article, the Ex-Naval Men’s Association of Victoria made representations to the Minister of the Navy on the issue. Unfortunately, the contents of this correspondence are largely unknown due to the file not being marked for retention.4

24-9 Several other newspaper articles on the issue have appeared over time, often coinciding with the anniversary of Yarra’s loss. More recently, authors such as Commander Greg Swinden, RAN, Dr Tom Lewis and Mr John Bradford have taken up the cause for recognition for Taylor in websites, articles and books.

24-10 The matter of recognition for Taylor has also been raised in the Australian Parliament. On 3 June 2004, Mr Tony Smith, MP (Liberal, Casey, Victoria) recounted the actions of Yarra, and went on to request that ‘the Navy consider more formally recognising his bravery, perhaps through the naming of a ship in the future’.5 On 28 February 2007, Smith, by then the Parliamentary Secretary to the prime minister, mentioned that ‘the families of those who survive to pass on the stories of Yarra very much want to have the contribution recognised in a major way’.6

24-11 Taylor was included in the Tribunal’s Terms of Reference after being proposed by the Department of Defence. Defence advised at a public hearing on 31 May 2012 that Taylor was added to the list after advice from the RAN Sea Power Centre – Australia that they had received a number of submissions in the past from members of the public pressing the case for recognition for Taylor.

Submissions24-12 The Tribunal has received 14 written submissions and 6 oral submissions in

relation to Leading Seaman Taylor.

Written submissionsa. Submissions 45 and 45A — Commander Greg Swinden, RAN (for)

b. Submissions 54, 54A, 54B and 54C — Mr Garry Taylor and Ms Emilia Despotovski (for)

c. Submission 86 — Mr John Bradford (for)

d. Submission 92 — Mr Michael Carlton (for)

e. Submission 99 — Mr Graham Wilson (against)

f. Submission 111 — Mr RE Popple (for)

2 Michael Ryan, ‘The gunner’s last stand’ Sunday Herald Sun, 29 October 1995, p. 78.3 Column 8, The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 March 1947, p. 1.4 Navy Office Ledger, NAA: Melbourne, Book 429/205.5 CPD, H of R, 3 June 2004 (Tony Smith).6 CPD, H of R, 28 February 2007 (Tony Smith).


g. Submission 124 — Mr Richard Pelvin (against)

h. Submissions 172 and 172A — Mr Angus Walsh (for)

i. Submissions 185 and 185A — Mr Ralph Bull (for recognition for HMAS Yarra).

Oral submissionsa. Mr Graham Wilson — Public Hearing Canberra, 1 December 2011 (against)

b. Mr Richard Pelvin — Public Hearing Canberra, 2 December 2011 (against)

c. Mr Garry Taylor and Ms Emelia Despotovski — Public Hearing Melbourne, 15 December 2011 (for)

d. Mr Michael Carlton — Public Hearing Sydney, 8 February 2012 (for)

e. Commander Greg Swinden — Public Hearing Sydney, 9 February 2012 (for)

f. Mr John Bradford — Public Hearing Adelaide, 14 February 2012 (for).

The available evidence

Empress of Asia action24-13 As discussed in Chapter 21, Commander Harrington brought Taylor’s actions

during the 5 February 1942 Empress of Asia action to the notice of his next in command, Commodore John Collins, RAN. This was in accordance with the contemporary process of initiating recommendations for honours. See paragraph 21-12 for details of Harrington’s account of Taylor’s actions of 5 February.

24-14 As discussed in Chapter 21, it is not known what action Collins took regarding Harrington’s report. However, what is known is that a copy of this report was also forwarded for information to the Australian Commonwealth Naval Board (ACNB) and that service records of some of those mentioned in the report were annotated (see paragraphs 21-73 to 21-77).

The loss of HMAS Yarra24-15 As early as March 1942, Australian naval authorities had Commander Harrington’s

detailed Report of Proceedings covering the Empress of Asia action. But only a brief and (as time would prove) partially inaccurate account of Yarra’s final action was available to them immediately afterwards (see paragraph 21-38). The passage of time brought further evidence to their attention.

24-16 This evidence included:

• the 11 March report made by Lieutenant MR Mathews, RN, the senior surviving officer HMS Anking, who arrived at Colombo in March 1942 (see paragraph 21-35). It is not known when this correspondence was received in Australia;7

7 Columbo (sic) notes, pp. 52–53, NAA: B6121, 337.


336

• the 19 March signal from Commander-in-Chief Eastern Fleet, Vice Admiral Sir Geoffrey Layton, RN, to Collins and the ACNB, which gave a brief account of Yarra’s final action;8

• the report of Lieutenant FR Nixon, Royal Naval Reserve, of MMS51, submitted to Collins in March 1942 (see paragraph 21-37);9

• the May 1942 statement of Ordinary Seaman Jack Archibald (see Appendix 10);

• reports published in newspapers and broadcast in the media from March 1942 onwards.

• the Report of 20 May from the Department of the Navy to Minister Makin, which Makin used to report to the House of Representatives (see paragraph 21-44).10

• the report provided to Prime Minister Curtin on 12 November 1942 by the Chief of Naval Staff and First Naval Member Vice Admiral Guy Royle, RN, as requested by the Minister for the Navy, The Hon. Norman Makin (see paragraphs 21-45 to 21-49).11

• Parry’s HMAS Yarra, the story of a gallant ship,12 and Jones and Idriess’s The silent service: action stories of the ANZAC Navy 13, both published in 1944.

• A proud page in our history, published by the Department of Information in 1944, reconstructing the story of the losses of Perth and Yarra.

• various reports from Anking survivors, brought to the attention of the ACNB in late 1945.14

• a letter from Able Seaman John F Murphy, a prisoner aboard the IJNS Maya, provided to the Official Historian in November 1946.15

• Japanese responses to questions from naval historical staff regarding the loss of the Yarra, which were provided in late 1947.16

Existing recognition for Taylor24-17 Taylor has received some recognition for his deeds on 4 March 1942. His example

is celebrated as one of ‘Loyalty’, one of the RAN’s five core values.17

24-18 In his oral submission on 9 March 2012, Commander Swinden told the Tribunal that some consideration had been given to naming a Collins-class submarine in honour of Taylor; however, possibly due to a reduction in the number of

8 Signal 191215Z, NAA: MP151/1 429/205/2; Appendix III to East Indies War Records for March 1942, TNA: ADM1/12190.

9 Minute, Naval Staff Office Fremantle 0/19/21, TNA: ADM 199/357.10 ‘The Royal Australian Navy in Malayan and Dutch East Indies Waters’, NAA: MP1049/5, 1953/2/5.11 Letter, Minister for the Navy, 12 November 1942, NAA: MP 1049/5, 1968/2/633.12 AF Parry, HMAS Yarra, the story of a gallant ship, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1944.13 Thomas Jones & Ion Idreiss, The silent service: action stories of the ANZAC Navy, Angus and Robertson,

Sydney, 1944.14 Letter, Lieutenant Thode to Australian Commonwealth Naval Board, 2 September 1945, NAA: B6121/3 52T;

Captain Eighth Submarine Flotilla Minute 5944/280,NAA: MP1185/8.15 Letter, Mr John F Murphy, 9 November 1946, AWM 69, 45/1.16 Letter, Officer Commanding the Australian Military History Section, British Commonwealth Occupation

Forces, Japan, 16 December 1947, AWM 54, 423/4/82.17 Royal Australian Navy, Navy values: serving Australia with pride, Department of Defence, Canberra,

September 2009.


submarines to be built from eight to six, Taylor was not eventually honoured in this way.18

24-19 On 18 September 2012, following comments made at a public hearing of the Tribunal on 31 May 2012, the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, announced that a recruit division at HMAS Cerberus would be named in honour of Taylor.

Arguments put forward in submissions for and against the award of the Victoria Cross or other recognition for Taylor

Arguments put forward in submissions for the award24-20 The arguments put forward for the award of the Victoria Cross (VC) or other

recognition for Taylor were as follows:

• The failure to have the bravery of Yarra’s company reviewed and recognised is an oversight which needs to be corrected, regardless of the passage of time (Submission 45). It is a case of manifest injustice (Submission 86).

• Taylor’s actions meet the criteria for the award of the VC and he deserves the nation’s highest award for gallantry (Submissions 54B and 92; and Taylor and Despotovski oral submissions Melbourne 15 December 2011).

• The numerous and competing priorities on RAN senior officers during the Second World War prevented the appropriate submissions being made to the Admiralty (Submissions 92 and 106; Carlton oral submissions Sydney 8 February 2012; Swinden oral submission Sydney 9 February 2012; and Robert Rankin oral submission Brisbane 13 March 2012). Perhaps more effort would have been made had Rankin and Taylor survived (Carlton oral submission Sydney 8 February 2012).

• Taylor’s decision enabled 34 men to escape, though that decision cost him his life, as he would have well known at the time he made this sacrifice (Despotovski oral submission Melbourne 15 December 2011).

Arguments put forward in submissions against the award24-21 Submissions against the award of the VC or other recognition for Taylor provided

the following counter-views:

• On the one hand, Taylor’s actions were admirable and deserving of the highest praise. On the other hand, Taylor deliberately disobeyed a lawful command to abandon ship. As admirable as Taylor’s action was, it was obviously totally pointless as HMAS Yarra was ablaze and sinking, Taylor’s fire was totally without effect on the enemy, and by his actions Taylor was endangering the lives of his shipmates. As a leading rating of several years’ service and experience, Taylor would have been of far more useful service in the life rafts, working to save the lives of his shipmates (Submission 99).

• The time for Taylor to be recognised was 1942, not 2011, almost 60 (sic) years after the event. The authorities of the day, for whatever reason, chose not to

18 Oral submission by Commander Greg Swinden, Public Hearing Sydney, 9 February 2012.


338

make any award to Leading Seaman Taylor. While we may not agree with the decision, we cannot argue with the reasons, for we were not there at the time (Submission 99).

Tribunal review of the merits of the case24-22 Having concluded through process reviews that Taylor’s case was not properly

handled at the time (see paragraphs 21-91 to 21-92), the Tribunal conducted separate merit reviews of his actions on 5 February 1942 and 4 March 1942. These merits reviews were carried out in accordance with the Tribunal’s approach as described in paragraph 8-46 of the Report. In both cases, no specific honour was recommended, and the Tribunal found that there was no conscious decision to even consider an award. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to place itself in the situation of the original decision-maker, making sure that it had before it the sort of evidence that would justify considering these actions for an award.

Empress of Asia action24-23 In conducting its merits review of Taylor’s actions on 5 February 1942, the Tribunal

relied heavily on Commander Harrington’s Report of Proceedings of 11 February 1942. The Tribunal recognised this as a valid form of recommendation, set out in accordance with the practices of the time.

24-24 The Tribunal carefully considered the choice of words set out in Harrington’s Report of Proceedings in respect of Taylor (see paragraph 21-12). They were: ‘Acting Leading Seaman Ronald Taylor, ON 20863, the Captain of Gun of No. 2 Gun, deserves commendation in that, on this occasion, as on many others, he controlled his gun with judgement and determination. This rating’s keenness and courage are a good example to all those in his vicinity’. The Tribunal concluded that a Mention in Despatches might have been awarded to Taylor, had the recommendation been properly handled and submitted to the Admiralty Honours and Awards Committee.

24-25 However, the Tribunal found no annotation on Taylor’s service record about his actions on 5 February 1942, as was the case with Lieutenant Commander Smith and Able Seaman Kimmins and Oliver (see paragraphs 21-76 and 21-77). On the basis of the available evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the additions to the service records of Smith, Kimmins and Oliver were the result of a process of consideration by the ACNB of their actions on 5 February 1942, particularly in light of the fact that Able Seaman Lloyd’s record was not annotated in this way. The Tribunal concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend Taylor for an individual gallantry honour for his service on 5 February 1942.


The loss of HMAS Yarra24-26 After taking into account all the submissions and evidence presented throughout

the course of this Inquiry, in particular the evidence listed at paragraph 24-16, the Tribunal was able to make the following conclusions:

a. Between 0600 and 0700 on the morning of 4 March 1942, whilst enroute from Tjilatjap to Fremantle, HMAS Yarra and her convoy came under attack from a superior Japanese force of three cruisers and two destroyers.

b. At some time early in the action, Yarra’s Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Commander Rankin ordered Yarra to make smoke in order to screen the convoy.

c. At some time early in the action, Rankin turned towards and attacked the Japanese force, which by now was probably firing at Yarra and her convoy.

d. Sometime after that, Rankin was killed when a shell from one of the Japanese ships destroyed the bridge. Around this time, the order to abandon ship was made.

e. After being made aware of the order to abandon ship, Taylor instead chose to remain at his gun and keep firing at the Japanese.

f. Sometime later, after some of the crew had made it to the rafts, Taylor was killed.

24-27 The Tribunal accepts that while Taylor probably did choose to disobey a lawful order to abandon ship in order to continue engaging the enemy, it does not accept the speculation that in doing so, he endangered the safety of his fellow shipmates. Rather, the Tribunal viewed Taylor’s act as one of gallantry, and one which should continue to be recognised into the future.

24-28 The Tribunal agrees that in some cases, alternative forms of recognition such as those set out in paragraphs 8-51 to 8-54 of the Report may well be an appropriate way of adequately recognising the gallantry or valour of those who would have otherwise gone unrecognised. This is particularly so regarding actions that took place seven decades ago and where only a limited amount of clear and reliable evidence is available. However, the Tribunal formed the view that, in the case of HMAS Yarra, the maladministration and repeated failure to take account of evidence that could have resulted in medallic recognition, had that evidence been properly handled and considered at the time, was such that the Tribunal was compelled to consider an appropriate form of medallic recognition, in addition to the other forms of recognition already afforded to Taylor (for full discussion see Chapter 21).

24-29 While the Tribunal received a range of enthusiastic and well-researched submissions in support of Taylor’s gallantry, in making its recommendations it was nonetheless constrained by a lack of primary evidence about his actions on 4 March 1942. The Tribunal found that this lack of evidence was such that it could not recommend the award of an individual gallantry honour to Taylor.

24-30 In light of these findings, the Tribunal found it appropriate to recommend that the service of Taylor, and other members of Yarra’s complement on 5 February and 4 March 1942 be recognised with the award of the Unit Citation for Gallantry, which


340

the Tribunal noted is now available to recognise acts of extraordinary gallantry in action and may be awarded posthumously (for the Tribunal’s full discussion see Chapter 21).

Tribunal conclusion24-31 The Tribunal concluded that in relation to the events of 5 February 1942 and

4 March 1942, on process, Taylor’s case was not properly handled or considered at the time, to the extent that an injustice had taken place. However, the Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence available to recommend the award of an individual gallantry honour to Taylor for his actions on either of these dates.

Tribunal recommendation24-32 To remedy the injustice, the Tribunal recommends that Leading Seaman Taylor,

along with the other members of Yarra’s crew who served on either 5 February 1942 or 4 March 1942, receive the Unit Citation for Gallantry for their extraordinary gallantry on both of these dates.

24-33 The Tribunal also supports the steps the RAN has recently taken to recognise Taylor in other ways, particularly in the naming of the recruit division at HMAS Cerberus. The Tribunal suggests the perpetual recognition of Taylor in this manner.

chapter twenty-four acting leading seaman ......acting leading seaman ronald ‘buck’ taylor broke...

Documents