I ALLEGED VICTORIA CROSS

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 August 1930, Page 9

I ALLEGED VICTORIA CROSS

BIRMINGHAM MAN’S DECEPTION

A remarkable story was toid at the Birmingham Police Court on June 13, when Geoffrey Herman Garratt appeared on three summonses; firstly, that on February G last he falsely repiesented himself to be a person who was entitled to wear military decorations, namely, the V.C., D. 5.0., and the M.C.; secondly, that on February 14 last, being an unauthorised person, he wore- military decorations, namely, the V.C. and the D. 5.0.: thirdly, that on the same day he wore certain military medal ribbons, namely, tac V.C., and thu D.S.O.

Defendant, who was represented by Mr. D. L. Finnemore, pleaded guilty to the charges. Mr. M.,P. Pugh, who prosecuted on bchall of the Director of Public Prosecutions, said the matter came before the authorities when a leaflet was circulated from an address in Birmingham, in relation to a scheme for training disabled ex-service men in a system of metal photography. On this, defendant was described as Captain G. H. Garratt, V.C., D. 5.0., 0.8. E., M.C., A.M. To nope of these honours was defendant entitled, and ho might say that Garratt deceived not only people to whom the circular was addressed, but also those connected with the scheme. Deftndant also deceived a number of newspapers, one of wliicli published in December last an announcement that purported to bo a copy of an extract from the supplement to the “Gazette of India.” to the effect that the, King “has been graciously pleased to confer the Victoria. Cross on Lieutenant, now Captain G. H. Garratt, D. 5.0., M.C., of the Armies of India, Officers’ Reserve.” The paragraph, which was quoted as though from the official source, wont on to describe an act of gallantry in which Lieutenant Garratt, having received orders to co-operate with his company in a general retirement during operations against Mahsuds on the North-western frontier, on April 10, 1020, seeing one of his native officers badly wounded and unable to leave, immediately went back half a mile, placed the wounded man on his back and brought him to safety. So intense was the lire, the paragraph continued, that the native officer received two more wounds, but Lieutenant Garratt escaped without injury. The act of bravery, it was mentioned, was brought to notice the same year, but no honour was conferred. Since then the matter has been reviewed, with the result stated. Following this announcement was the statement that “Captain Garratt has been very popular in Cradley and the surrounding district by his interest in exservico men and the work of the British Legion, and the news of the great honour which has been accorded him will give general gladness.”

“BRAVEST DIAN IN BRITAIN.”

In a London newspaper defendant was described in large headlines as the “Bravest Dian in Britain,” and also us a “shy hero.” Mr. Pugh quoted from a third paper, in which was a paragraph headed: “Always the Hero. Officer Who is as Brave in Peace as in War.” The last-mentioned paragraph described how Captain Garratt had won the Albert Medal. “He saved the life or a woman in a Birmingham street by dragging her from the path of a runaway horse. While motoring he saw a man fall into the River Severn at Eewdley, and he immediately plunged in the flooded river and rescued the man. Captain Garratt, who has the D. 5.0., M.C.', 0.8. E., and numerous service orders, is 28 yc-ars of age and is described tis one who does not really know what danger is.”

Accused had never won the Albert Medal, said Mr. Pugh, nor any other medal except the Indian General Service Medal.

! Mr. Pugh said defendant was in the Indian Army in 1919, and received a commission, but his conduct was so unsatisfactory that he was dismissed from the service by an order of general ‘ court-martial, charges of embezzlement i having been brought against him. 1 Mr. Finnemore, in -extenuation, suggested that having left tho army in circumstances that were not creditable to him, defendant sought to make matters appear tho better with his family by pretending that there was a better side |to his character and that he- had done 1 sonij creditable things.

Defendant was a man of a highly lespectable family, added counsel. He was now only 30, and married last year, his wife was able to say that his conduct had been satisfactory and that they had lived very happily together. She wanted to say that whatever happened she would stand by her husband and do all she could to assist him to make good. The magistrate said he was satisfied that defendant had no fraudulent idea. Ho could not say whether, defendant thought.ho might help ex-servicemen in using these decorations, or whether it was to satisfy his own vanity. Whatever defendant’s object was it was a serious offence, and on the first summens ho would be fined £5 and ordered to pay £6 costs, or, in default, 31 days’ imprisonment. On the other summonses he must pay tiie court fees.