text:
Ronald Ryan

Ronald Joseph Ryan (21 February 1925 – 3 February 1967) was the last person to be legally executed in Australia. Ryan was found guilty of shooting and killing warder George Hodson during an escape from Pentridge Prison, Victoria, in 1965. Ryan's hanging was met with public protests by those opposed to capital punishment. Capital punishment was abolished in all states by 1985.

Early life
Ronald Edmond Thompson was born at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne's inner suburb of Carlton, to John Ronald Ryan and Cecilia Thompson (née Young). Cecilia already had a son with her first husband, George Harry Thompson and was living with John Ryan. Cecilia and George had separated in 1915 when George left to fight in the Great War. The relationship never resumed. Cecilia met Ryan while working as a nurse in Woods Point where he was suffering from lung disease. They formed a relationship in 1924 and later married in 1929, after Thompson's death in 1927 by falling from a tram and getting hit by a car. Ronald then adopted the name Ronald Edmond Ryan. In 1936, Ryan was confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church. He took as his confirmation name Joseph, becoming Ronald Edmond Joseph Ryan. He did not like Edmond and from then on used "Ronald Joseph Ryan".

His three sisters were made wards of the state a year later when authorities declared them to be "neglected". His sisters were sent to the Good Shepherd Convent in Collingwood. Ryan absconded from Rupertswood in September 1939 and, with his half-brother George Thompson, worked in and around Balranald, New South Wales; spare money earned from sleeper cutting and kangaroo shooting was sent to his mother, who was looking after their sick, alcoholic father.

At the age of 20, Ryan had saved enough money to rent a house in Balranald. He collected his mother and sisters and they lived together in this house. Ryan's father stayed in Melbourne and died a year later, aged 62, after a long battle with miners' disease, phthisis tuberculosis.

Move to Victoria, marriage and children
Aged about 22, Ryan decided to join his brother, who was tomato farming near Tatura, Victoria. He started visiting Melbourne on weekends and during one of these weekend trips Ryan met his future wife, Dorothy Janet George. On 4 February 1950, Ryan married Dorothy at St Stephen's Anglican Church in Richmond, Victoria. He converted from Roman Catholicism to the Church of England to marry her. He converted back to Catholicism shortly before his execution. Dorothy was the daughter of the mayor of the Melbourne suburb of Hawthorn. Ryan and Dorothy had three daughters, Janice, Wendy and Rhonda. A fourth baby was stillborn.

Later life
After spending a few months working for his father-in-law as a trainee mechanic, Ryan decided that more money could be made cutting timber near Marysville and Licola. When it was too wet to cut timber, Ryan got a job painting for the State Electricity Commission. By 1952 the Ryan family was living in Noojee.

Trouble with the law started when his rented house burnt down. Ryan was away for the weekend in Melbourne when the arsonist struck. The arsonist was caught and claimed that Ryan had put him up to it in order to claim insurance money. His first appearance in court was in Warragul in 1953 when he was acquitted on a charge of arson.

In 1956 Ryan appeared in court for passing bad cheques in Dandenong. He was given a bond. His next appearance in court was after he issued a large number of forged cheques in Warrnambool. His partner was caught with the goods purchased with the bad cheques and handed Ryan over to the police. He received another good-behaviour bond after the arresting detective gave a favourable character reference on Ryan's behalf.

Ryan first served prison time at Bendigo Prison. Here, under Ian Grindlay (who would later become the Governor of Pentridge Prison), he appeared to want to better himself. He was studying for his Matriculation (the successful completion of 12 years of formal schooling) when he was released on parole in August 1963. He was regarded by the authorities as a model prisoner.

After working as a clerk for a couple of months, Ryan went to lunch and was never to be seen again, as he had started robbing butchers shops and used explosives to blow their safes.

Ryan and two accomplices were caught after a shop robbery on 4 January 1964. He was charged with breaking and entering and theft offences on 6 January 1964. Bailed on 3 February 1964, Ryan skipped town and fled to New South Wales. He later admitted to nine robberies in New South Wales between 4 April and 11 July 1964. On a visit home on 14 July he was caught by Victoria Police in the early hours the next morning. On 13 November 1964 he received an eight-year prison sentence for breaking and entering. He was sent to Pentridge Prison.

Escape
After Ryan was sentenced to Pentridge Prison, he was placed in B Division where he met fellow prisoner Peter John Walker, who was serving a 12-year sentence for bank robbery. When Ryan was informed that his wife was seeking a divorce, he made a plan to escape from prison. Walker decided to go along with him. Ryan planned to take himself and his family and flee to Brazil, which did not have an extradition treaty with Australia. On 19 December 1965, Ryan and Walker scaled the prison wall and ran across the top of the wall to a prison watchtower, where they took prison officer Helmut Lange hostage, threatening him to open the gate with his own M1 rifle. Lange agreed, but deliberately pulled the wrong lever. Ryan and Walker then proceeded downstairs with their hostage only to find that the gate would not open. At the bottom of the stairs was the night officers' lodge. Warder Fred Brown was returning from lunch to relieve Lange when he was confronted by the escapees. Brown did not resist. When Ryan realised Lange had tricked him, he jabbed the rifle into Lange's back and marched him back up the stairs so Lange could pull the correct lever to open the tower gate. The two escapees then exited through the gate into the prison car park. To the escapees' dismay there were only six cars in the car park and five had flat tyres.

However, they did encounter the prison chaplain, Brigadier James Hewitt of the Salvation Army, in the car park. The escapees grabbed Hewitt and used him as a shield. Ryan, armed with the rifle, pointed it at Hewitt and demanded his car. Prison Officer Bennett in Tower 2 saw the prisoners. Ryan called to Bennett to throw down his rifle. Bennett ducked out of sight and then got his rifle.

When Hewitt told Ryan he did not have his car that day, Ryan rifle-butted him in the head causing serious injuries. Les Watt, a petrol attendant who watched the escape from a petrol station on Sydney Rd, witnessed Ryan hitting Hewitt with the rifle. The escapees then left the badly injured chaplain and Ryan ran out to Champ Street, directly in front of the south-west corner of the prison.

Walker went south across Church Street toward the adjacent Roman Catholic church in Sydney Road. Prison officer Bennett had his rifle aimed at Walker and ordered Walker to halt or he would shoot. Walker took cover behind a small wall that bordered the church. The prison alarm was raised by Warder Lange, and it began to blow loudly, indicating a prison escape. Unarmed warders, Wallis, Mitchinson and Paterson, came running out of the prison's main gate and onto the street.

Prison officer George Hodson responded to the whistle and was told by Bennett that he had Walker pinned down. Hodson ran over to Walker and disarmed him, but Walker managed to get free and both men ran towards the armed Ryan.

Meanwhile, confusion and noise were increasing around the busy intersection of Sydney Road and O'Hea Street and across to the Champ Street intersection, with Ryan waving the rifle around trying to get cars to stop so he could commandeer them, and people ducking for cover between cars.

Frank and Pauline Jeziorski were travelling south on Champ Street and had slowed to give way to traffic on Sydney Road when Ryan armed with the rifle appeared in front of their car. Ryan threatened the driver and his passenger wife to get out of their car. The driver, Frank Jeziorski, turned his car off, put it in neutral then got out of his vehicle. Ryan got in via the driver's door. Surprisingly, Pauline Jeziorski refused to get out of the car. She was persuaded by Ryan to get out, only to go back in the car to get her handbag. Paterson, realising Ryan was armed, returned inside the prison to get a rifle.

Warder William Mitchinson was first to reach the car and grabbed Ryan through the driver's window, he told Ryan "the game's up". Warder Thomas Wallis who was following, ran to Pauline Jeziorski's side of the car. He grabbed her and pulled her away from the car.

In frustration, Ryan forced Mitchinson to back off, then got out of the passenger's side door and noticed Walker running towards him, being chased by Hodson who was holding the pipe in his hand. Walker was shouting frantically to Ryan that prison guard William Bennett, standing on the Number 2 prison tower, had his rifle aimed at them. At this time, Hodson was chasing Walker; Ryan took a couple of steps forward, raised his rifle, aimed at Hodson, and fired.

George Hodson fell to the ground. He had been struck by a single bullet that exited through Hodson's back, about an inch lower than the point of entry in his right chest. Hodson died in the middle of Sydney Road. Warder Robert Paterson, now with a rifle, ran back outside and onto Champ Street.

Ryan and Walker ran past the critically wounded Hodson and commandeered a blue Standard Vanguard sedan on Sydney Road from its driver, Brian Mullins. With Walker driving and Ryan a passenger, the car travelled through an adjacent service station and then west along O'Hea Street.

On the run
Ryan and Walker successfully eluded their pursuers outside Pentridge Prison and drove away before changing cars. They then made their way south following the Moonee Ponds Creek to change cars again before hiding in a safe house in Kensington provided by Norman Harold Murray. The following day the men moved into Christine Aitken's flat in Ormond Road, Elwood.

The prison escape dominated newspapers and other media. One newspaper reported that, "Ronald Ryan, serving time for burglary, seized a prison officer and shot him three times, twice in the chest and once in the back." Reports of their activities caused widespread anxiety.

On 24 December, Ryan (armed with the warder's rifle) and Walker robbed an ANZ bank in North Road, Ormond. The bank manager and a customer were ordered out of his office with a revolver (different to the warder's rifle). Ryan herded 13 people into the bank's strongroom and stole A£4500. A witness, June Crawford, told reporters, "a bandit told me 'This gun shot a man a few days ago. Ryan and Walker escaped in a 1952 Holden sedan.

On the same day, the Victorian Government announced a £6,000 reward for information leading to the capture of Ryan and Walker. It was reported in The Age that the Chief Secretary and Attorney General, Arthur Rylah, had issued a warning to the escapees that the killing of Hodson during the prison escape was the worst Victoria had known and that the "Hanging Act was still in force."

On 24 December (Christmas Eve), there was a party at the flat. A petty criminal, John Fisher, who knew Ryan, and Arthur Henderson (Aitken's boyfriend) were there. After all their beer had been consumed, Walker and Henderson left to find sly-grog in Albert Park for more drinks. An hour later Walker returned alone to the flat. He had killed Henderson in a Middle Park toilet block, having shot him in the back of the head. The escapees left the flat and returned to Kensington. On 26 December, Aitken and another woman were charged with harbouring the criminals. They came forward after Henderson was killed and the escapees had left. The charges were later dropped. The pair returned to hiding in the basement of the house in Kensington. Murray was given money to buy a car in Sydney and return with it. Murray returned with the car with Queensland plates on 31 December (New Year's Eve). Ryan and Walker left for Sydney on 1 January 1966 (New Year's Day) and arrived on 2 January.

Recapture
After arriving in Sydney, Ryan and Walker endeavoured to establish some safe houses; Ryan also wanted to make contact with a woman he knew when he was in Sydney years ago; she was not home but her daughter was. Ryan made an arrangement to meet the woman and daughter at Concord Repatriation Hospital on the evening of 6 January. Unknown to Ryan the daughter recognised Ryan and tipped off the police. Acting on the information, Detective Inspector (DI) Ray "Gunner" Kelly was alerted about their presence. DI Kelly with a heavily armed contingent of 50 police officers and detectives set a trap for them.

When the escapees' car pulled up near the hospital, Ryan walked over to a nearby telephone box, but it had been deliberately put out of order, so he walked over to a neighbouring shop and asked to use the phone there. The owner had been instructed to tell Ryan that his phone was also out of order, and as Ryan walked out of the shop he was tackled by six detectives, dropping a loaded .32 revolver that he had been carrying. At the same moment Det. Sgt Fred Krahe thrust a shotgun through the car window and held it at Walker's head, and he was captured without a struggle. Ryan and Walker had been on the run for 19 days. In the boot of the car police found three pistols, a shotgun and two rifles, all fully loaded, an axe, jemmy, two coils of rope, a hacksaw and two boiler suits.

Extradition
Ryan and Walker were extradited back to Melbourne. They were jointly tried for the murder of George Hodson. It is alleged that Ryan made three verbal confessions to police whilst being extradited to Melbourne. According to police, Ryan admitted to them he had shot prison officer Hodson. However, these verbal allegations were not signed by Ryan and he denied making such verbal or written confessions to anyone. The only signed document by Ryan was that he would give no verbal testimony. Walker was also tried for the shooting murder of Arthur James Henderson during the period when he and Ryan were at large.

Trial and sentencing
On 15 March 1966, the case of The Queen v. Ryan and Walker began in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The first day was spent choosing the make up of the jury. Ryan and Walker each exercised their legal right in objecting to twenty candidates.

Crown's case
The Crown's case presented no scientific evidence. Ryan's rifle was never scientifically tested by ballistics experts to prove that it had fired a shot. The fatal bullet and the spent cartridge casing were never recovered so no ballistic or forensic evidence was available to prove that Ryan had fired the fatal shot. The Crown's case relied only on eyewitnesses who were near Pentridge Prison when Hodson was shot and killed, because there was no scientific forensic evidence to prove Ryan fired a shot. Each eyewitness testified to a different account of what they saw and where Ryan was standing. Eleven eyewitnesses swore that they saw Ryan waving and aiming his rifle. There were variations, whether Ryan was standing, walking or squatting at the time a single shot was heard and whether Ryan was to the left or right of Hodson. Only four eyewitnesses testified that they saw Ryan fire a shot. Two eyewitnesses testified that they saw smoke coming from Ryan's rifle. Two eyewitnesses testified that they saw Ryan's weapon recoil.

Some witnesses testified that they saw Ryan's rifle recoil when he fired and also saw smoke from Ryan's rifle. The owners of the car Ryan got into, Frank and Pauline Jeziorski, were two of the witnesses. A warder, Thomas Wallis, testified that he saw smoke come out of the rifle Ryan was holding. Pauline Jeziorski testified that she smelled gunpowder after Ryan had fired the shot.

At trial, all prison officers testified that they did not see Hodson carrying anything and that they did not see Hodson hit Walker. However, two witnesses, Louis Bailey and Keith Dobson, testified that they saw Hodson carrying something like an iron-bar or baton as he was chasing after Walker. Governor Grindlay testified that he did not see a bar near Hodson's body but that he found one after Hodson's body was loaded into an ambulance.

Verbal confessions
The Crown also relied upon unrecorded unsigned testimony that Ryan had, allegedly, verbally confessed to shooting Hodson.

Detective Sergeant KP "Bill" Walters told the court that on 6 January 1966, the day after his re-capture in Sydney, Ryan said "In the heat of the moment you sometimes do an act without thinking. I think this is what happened with Hodson. He had no need to interfere. He was stupid. He was told to keep away. He grabbed Pete [Walker] and hit him with an iron bar. He caused his own death. I didn't want to shoot him. I could have shot a lot more."

Detective Senior Constable Harry Morrison told the court that on 7 January 1966 during the flight returning Ryan back to Melbourne Ryan said: "The warder spoilt the whole show. If he had not poked his great head into it he would not have got shot. It was either him or Pete."

The Crown also called the two bank officers from the bank that Ryan and Walker robbed. Robert Sipthorpe and George Robertson testified that Ryan said "This is the gun that shot a man the other day!" At trial, Ryan's defence lawyer Philip Opas cross-examined the two witnesses asking if instead they heard "This is the type of gun that shot a man the other day." Both witnesses stuck to their story.

John Fisher, who had a long criminal history and had not seen or heard from Ryan for more than two years, testified that he asked Ryan who had shot Hodson. Fisher said Ryan told him he had shot Hodson.

None of the verbal confessions were signed by Ryan, who only signed documents saying that he would give no verbal testimony. Ryan testified he had been "verballed" and denied the allegations of verbals/confessions said to have been made by him.

Defence's case
The main problem for the defence was that Victoria had the Gaols Act of 1958 in which it stated:
 * Every male person lawfully imprisoned for any crime misdemeanour or offence by the sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction, or employed at labour as a criminal on the roads or other public works of Victoria who escapes or attempts to escape from any gaol or from the custody of any member of the police force gaoler or other officer in whose custody he may be, shall be guilty of felony:
 * If a killing occurs by an act of violence in the course of a commission of a felony involving violence or in the furtherance of the purpose of such a felony the accused is guilty of murder even though, there is no actual intention of killing.

The defence spent a lot of time arguing about when the time of the felony ended. Did it end after the prisoners had cleared the prison walls or did it once the prisoners were caught and returned to custody?

The defence pointed to various substantial discrepancies in The Crown's case. While some eyewitnesses testified they saw Ryan to the east of Hodson when a single shot was heard, other eyewitnesses testified Ryan was to the west of Hodson. The discrepancies in evidence were substantial and wide-ranging. Opas contended that each of the fourteen eyewitnesses evidence were so contradictory that little store could be placed on them.

Philip Opas produced a human skeleton as a visual aid to explain the trajectory of the fatal bullet, Opas argued that the ballistics evidence indicated that the fatal bullet entered Hodson's (chest) body in a downward trajectory. He also got a Monash University mathematics professor, Terry Speed, to explain that Ryan, 5 ft tall would have had to have been 8 ft tall to have fired the shot. These calculations were based on Ryan being twenty feet from Hodson and Hodson was standing perfectly upright. The bullet would enter Hodson's body 62 inches from the ground and exit 61 inches from the ground. If the shot was in a downward angle the bullet would have hit the road forty feet from where Hodson was hit, it also suggested that Hodson could have been shot from another elevated point and possibly by another prison officer. It would cast doubt that Ryan had fired the fatal shot. But the prosecution argued that Hodson, 6 ft tall could have been running in a stooped position, thus accounting for the bullet's fatal angle of entry. No witnesses saw or testified seeing Hodson running in a stooped position.

The trajectory theory put forward by Opas, the trial judge dismissed the theory as did the judges at the Appeal two months later. They said there was enough evidence to say Hodson was not standing fully erected but was running in a forward leaning position when he was shot.

Opas in defending Ryan put a lot of pressure on a warder who made conflicting statements, Paterson had made several mutually contradictory statements to police about what he saw, heard and did on that day. In his first statement given to Detective Sergeant Carton on 19 December 1965 Paterson said; "I did not hear a shot fired other than the one I fired." In a second statement given to Senior Detective Morrison on 12 January 1966 Paterson said, "Just as I turned into the entrance to the garden I heard a shot." In a third statement on 3 February 1966 Paterson said, "I ran back inside and asked for a gun, I went to the main gate and I received a gun and ran back outside, as I was running on to the lawn I heard the crack of a shot." Paterson changed his story, too, about who was in the line of fire when he aimed his rifle. In his first statement Paterson said, "I sighted my rifle at Ryan and was about to fire when a woman walked into the line of fire and I lifted my rifle." In his second statement Paterson said, "I took aim at Ryan but two prison officers were in the line of fire so I dropped my rifle again." In his third statement Paterson said, "I took aim at Ryan and I found out I had to fire between two prison officers to get Ryan, so I lowered my gun again."

Ryan testified that he kept his rifle to prove his innocence in the event of recapture, as he knew that forensic microscopic markings on the spent bullet would prove that it was not fired from his rifle.

Despite extensive search by police, neither the fatal bullet nor the spent cartridge were ever found. Although all prison-authorised rifles were the same M1 carbine type, scientific forensic testing of the bullet would have proven which rifle fired the fatal shot – every rifle leaves a microscopic "unique marker" on the fired bullet as it travels through the barrel of the rifle.

All the bullets in Ryan's M1 carbine rifle would be accounted for if Ryan cocked the rifle with the safety-catch on; this faulty operation (conceded by prison officer Lange, assistant prison governor Robert Duffy, and confirmed by ballistic experts at trial) would have caused an undischarged bullet to be ejected, spilling onto the floor of the guard tower. Opas established that for a person who was inexperienced in handling that type of rifle and its cocking lever, it would be easy to jam the rifle and any attempt to clear the jam would result in a live round being ejected.

On the eighth day of the trial Ryan was sworn in and took the witness stand. Ryan denied firing a shot, denied the alleged verbal (unsigned) confessions said to have been made by him, and denied ever saying to anyone that he had shot a man. According to Ryan, they were after the reward money by making false allegations. "At no time did I fire a shot. My freedom was the only objective. The rifle was taken in the first instance so that it could not be used against me."

After a trial in the Victorian Supreme Court lasting twelve sitting days Ryan was convicted of the murder of Hodson and sentenced to death by Justice John Starke, the mandatory sentence at that time. Asked if he had anything to say before sentencing Ryan stated "I still maintain my innocence. I will consult with my counsel with a view to appeal. That is all I have to say!" Walker was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. He was also found guilty of manslaughter for the death of Arthur Henderson and received an 12-year sentence. Walker was paroled in 1984. He died on 5 March 2022, at the age of 80.

After the trial
According to juryman Tom Gildea, the jury evidently thought that the death sentence would be commuted, as had happened in the previous 35 death penalties cases since 1951. Gildea's account of the discussions in the jury room, not one member of the jury thought that Ryan would be executed. Gildea said,

Of the jury, two members held out the first vote we took, but 10 of us were sure Ryan was guilty. He was a bit too sure of himself in the witness box but the thing that decided us was handling the rifle which had killed Hodson. We had been told the rifle had a hair trigger, but when we examined it we found we had to pull it at least half an inch and use quite a bit of force."

Eight members of the jury were experienced with rifles either in the country or overseas with war service.

Gildea also said, "I don't know how much experience the judge and the lawyers had but we had had our share in the jury box I can tell you."

When it was apparent that the Victorian Government was intent on hanging Ryan, Gildea contacted the nine other jury members he could trace. Gildea said that of the twelve jurors, three refused to sign petitions, one older man who was convinced of Ryan's guilt and the two who believe Ryan was not guilty. Two other jurors could not be contacted.

Seven jury members, including Gildea, signed separate petitions requesting Ryan's death sentence be commuted to life in prison. Later, some of the jurors came forth and stated they would never have convicted Ryan of murder had they known that he would in fact be executed. Gildea said "We didn't want the rope. If we had known Ryan would hang, I think we would have gone for manslaughter."

Appeal
Opas decided to appeal against the murder verdict. The appeal was to the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, a bench consisting of three judges of the Supreme Court. The basis of the appeal was that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. He argued that as a matter of law that the inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities and even impossibilities in the evidence.

At the trial there had been a legal argument on when the crime of escaping from jail had been completed. In the Crimes Act, a relevant section provides that "every male person lawfully imprisoned for any crime who escapes shall be guilty of a felony".

At the trial, Mr Justice Starke had directed the jury: "In certain circumstances, the crime of murder may be established even though the accused had no intention of killing. And that is so in these circumstances. If a killing occurs by an act of violence in the course of a commission of a felony involving violence, or in the furtherance of the purpose of such felony, the accused is guilty of murder, even though there is no actual intention of killing." There was long legal argument on when the escape felony finished, did it stop once Ryan and Walker left the prison property or did it continue until they were caught in Sydney nineteen days later?

The appeal was dismissed on 8 June 1966.

On 14 October 1966, the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia rejected appeals by Ryan and Walker. With all legal avenues yet to be exhausted, legal aid to Ryan was cut by the Bolte Government. Premier Bolte then directed the Public Solicitor to withdraw Opas' brief as the government was not going to fund the petition to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Ryan had a right to increased free legal assistance for expert forensics analysis, to hire expert witnesses, and to present a series of appeals and recourses that were available to those facing execution by the government. The Full Court agreed that it was unthinkable that a man should be executed before he had exhausted his ultimate right of appeals. Opas decided to apply to the Privy Council in London. The appeal is a vestigial remnant of an appeal to the sovereign in person.

On 12 December 1966, the State Executive Council (Premier Bolte's cabinet) announced that Ryan would hang on 9 January 1967.

Opas, convinced of Ryan's innocence, agreed to work without pay. Opas consulted the Ethics Committee of the Bar Council to seek approval to make a public appeal for a solicitor prepared to brief him, as Opas was prepared to pay his travel, other expenses and appear without fee. The Committee said that this would be touting for business and was unethical. Opas argued that a man's life was at stake and he could not see how he would be touting when no payment was involved. Opas defied the ruling and on national radio sought an instructor. Opas was inundated with offers and accepted the first application, being from Ralph Freadman. Alleyne Kiddle was in London completing a master's degree and she agreed to take a junior brief without a fee.

On 4 January 1967, the State Executive Council stayed Ryan's execution pending an approach to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Opas then flew to London to present Ryan's case to the highest judges in the Commonwealth. Ryan's execution was delayed by Premier Bolte awaiting the Privy Council's decision.

On 23 January 1967, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refused Ryan leave for appeal.

On 25 January 1967, the State Executive Council set Ryan's execution date as 31 January.

On 30 January 1967, Justice Starke ordered a stay of execution following an affidavit from former prisoner John Tolmie who said he saw a warder fire a shot from Number 1 tower at the time of the murder. The following day Tolmie was charged with perjury for making a false affidavit; he was not in gaol at the time of the escape.

Bolte scheduled Ryan's execution for the morning of Friday 3 February 1967, a week before the dismissal of the appeal to the Privy Council was published in the Government Gazette.

Final appeals
The State Government of Victoria had commuted every death sentence passed since 1951, after Robert Clayton, Norman Andrews and Jean Lee were executed for the torture and murder of an old man.

Starke reported that the Premier of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte, insisted that the death sentence be carried out. Bolte's cabinet was unanimous although there were at least four State cabinet members who opposed capital punishment.

When it became apparent that Bolte intended to proceed with the execution, a secret eleventh-hour plea for mercy was made by four of the jury members. They sent petitioning letters to the Governor of Victoria, Sir Rohan Delacombe, stating that in reaching their verdict they believed that capital punishment had been abolished in Victoria and requested that the governor exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and commute Ryan's sentence of death. Such Melbourne newspapers as The Age, The Herald and The Sun all ran campaigns opposing the hanging of Ryan. The papers ran a campaign of spirited opposition on the grounds that the death penalty was barbaric. Churches, universities, unions and a large number of the public and legal professions opposed the death sentence. An estimated 18,000 people participated in street protests and around 15,000 signed a petition against the hanging. The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) suspended radio broadcasts for two minutes as a protest.

Bolte denied all requests for mercy and was determined that Ryan would hang. On the afternoon of the eve of Ryan's hanging, Opas appeared before the trial judge, Justice John Starke, seeking a postponement of the execution due to the opportunity to test new proffered evidence. Opas pleaded with Starke and said, "Why the indecent haste to hang this man until we have tested all possible exculpatory evidence?" Starke, however, rejected the application.

Attorney-General, Sir Arthur Rylah, rejected a second plea to refer Ryan's case to the Full Court under Section 584 of the Crimes Act. A third attempt to save Ryan, in the form of a petition presented at the Crown Solicitor's office pleading for clemency, was also rejected. Close secrecy surrounded all government moves on the Ryan case. That evening, a former Pentridge prisoner, Allan John Cane, arrived in Melbourne from Brisbane in a new bid to save Ryan. An affidavit by Cane, which was presented to Cabinet, says he and seven prisoners were outside the cookhouse when they saw and heard a prison warder fire a shot from the No. 1 guard post at Pentridge Prison the day Hodson was shot. Police had interviewed these prisoners but none were called on at the trial to give evidence. Cane was immediately rushed into conference with his solicitor, Bernard Gaynor, who tried to contact cabinet ministers informing them of Cane's arrival. Gaynor telephoned Government House seeking an audience with the Governor, Sir Rohan Delacombe. However, Gaynor was told by a Government House spokesman that nobody would be answering calls until 9 am (one hour after Ryan's scheduled execution). Gaynor said Cane's mission had failed.

At 23:00, Ryan was informed that his final petition for mercy had been rejected. More than 3,000 people gathered outside Pentridge Prison in protest of the hanging. Shortly before midnight more than 200 police were at the prison to control the demonstrators.

Execution
On the night before the execution Ryan was transferred to a cell just a few steps away from the gallows trapdoor. Father Brosnan was with him most of this time. At the eleventh hour Ryan wrote his last letters to his family members, to his defence counsel, to the Anti-Hanging Committee and to Father Brosnan. The letters were handwritten on toilet paper inside his cell and neatly folded. In the documentary film The Last Man Hanged Ryan's letter to The Anti-Hanging Committee is read out loud to the public. Ryan wrote: "I state most emphatically that I am not guilty of murder." Ryan's last letter was to his daughters; it contained this line: "With regard to my guilt I say only that I am innocent of intent and have a clear conscience in the matter."

Ryan refused to have any sedatives but he did have a nip of whisky, and walked calmly onto the gallows trapdoor. Ronald Ryan's last words were to the hangman: "God bless you, please make it quick."

Ryan was hanged in 'D' Division at Pentridge Prison at 8:00 am on Friday 3 February 1967.

A nationwide three-minute silence was observed by Ryan's supporters at the exact time that Ryan was hanged. Ryan's fellow prisoners staged their own protest – they refused to get out of bed, staged a sit-in, refused to work or obey orders. There was an eerie silence throughout the prison.

Later that day, Ryan's body was buried in an unmarked grave within the "D" Division prison facility.

Forty years later in 2007, the Victorian Premier John Brumby granted permission for Ryan's family members to have his body exhumed from Pentridge Prison after Hodson's daughter jumped and danced on Ryan's grave. Ryan's remains were cremated and placed next to his deceased ex-wife in Portland Cemetery.

Appearance and personality
Ryan was a slightly built man who stood 5 ft tall. He had suffered an injury to his left eye as a child resulting in a permanent droop of his left eyelid. He favoured expensive clothing, aiming to impress others, and aspired to be known as Australia's leading criminal. He was of above-average intelligence and was described by the people who knew him and prison authorities as a likable character but also a compulsive gambler.

Arresting officer Det Harding described Ryan as "tough, plausible and particularly difficult to question, he gave nothing away until he realised the game was up".

Later statements
Nineteen years after Ryan's execution, a former warder, Doug Pascoe, claimed on air to Channel 9 and other media that he had fired a shot during Ryan's escape bid. Pascoe said his shot may have accidentally killed his fellow prison guard, Hodson. Pascoe had not told anyone that he fired a shot during the escape because at that time, "I was a 23-year-old coward." In 1986, he tried to sell his story but his claim was dismissed by police because his rifle had a full magazine after the shooting and he was too far away.

Pascoe's claim was rejected by another former warder, Bill Newman. Newman claimed that he was in Tower 3 the afternoon of the escape and that Pascoe was in Tower 4. Tower 3 was 200 metres from the shooting and Tower 4 was 500 metres away. Police produced a photocopy of the duty roster for the day that showed that Newman was meant to have been in Tower 3 and Pascoe in Tower 4.

Though Opas claimed that the staff duty roster was virtually meaningless on the day of the shooting because prison officers were taking turns sitting in for their colleagues while they attended the annual staff Christmas party, Newman said he returned to his tower (3) at 1.45 pm and later signed statements for the police. According to the duty roster Robert Paterson was not on duty either but in fact he was on duty – he was the one that fired a shot.

Retired prison governor Ian Grindlay said that Ryan told him "straight out" that he had shot but not meant to kill Hodson.

Sister Margaret Kingston of the Good Shepherd Convent in Abbotsford, said Ryan told her that he had shot Hodson, but had not meant to kill him.

Eyewitness
Twenty-five years after being a witness in Ryan's trial, where he gave evidence claiming to have seen him commit the murder, a man broke his silence, for fear that the alleged killer was becoming a latter-day Ned Kelly. Les Watt wrote to The Australian: "Let me assure you and your readers that Ryan did kill Hodson." Watt spoke out after reading Philip Opas' comments and the latter's autobiography. Watt was one of four witnesses to testify seeing Ryan fire a shot. Watt said that it might well be proper for Opas to leave the bar as his emotional involvement with the case had certainly distorted the facts, leading as it had to the suggestion that Ryan might not have fired the shot that killed Hodson. Watt, on the contrary, said that he saw Ryan take aim and fire and then saw Hodson fall flat on his face and not move. "It was a sickening sight. I also witnessed a slight puff of smoke come from the carbine Ryan used. This was probably as a result of a bullet passing through a well-oiled barrel bore."

Case for innocence
An Australian criminologist, Gordon Hawkins, the director of Sydney University's Institute of Criminology, doubts the damning validity of the "unsigned confessions" of Ryan in a television film documentary, Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Although verbal confessions are not permissible in court, in the 1960s the public—and therefore the jury—were much more trusting of the police. As to whether as a result an innocent man was hanged, there is at least a reasonable doubt following revelations of police corruption uncovered by various Australian police royal commissions. Australian police have to record or tape all interviews they carry out in connection with a crime. The police had no evidence of these unsigned verbal confessions. Ryan signed only a statement saying that he would not be giving any statements, verbal or written, to anyone except his lawyer. Hawkins questions why Ryan, a seasoned criminal, would suddenly feel the need to tell all to the police.

In 1993, a former Pentridge prisoner, Harold Sheehan, claimed he had witnessed the shooting but had not come forward at the time. Sheehan saw Ryan on his knees when the shot rang out and, therefore, Ryan could not have inflicted the wound that had killed Hodson, which passed in a downward trajectory.

All prison-authorised M1 carbine rifles, including that seized by Ryan from Lange, were issued loaded with eight rounds ball. Seven of the eight were accounted for in Ryan's case. If the eighth fell onto the floor of the prison watch-tower when Ryan cocked the rifle with the safety catch on, thereby ejecting a live round, then the bullet that killed Hodson must have been fired by a person other than Ryan.

In a letter, "Opas on Ryan – The innocence of Ronald Ryan", written to the Victorian Bar Association and published in the Victorian Bar News (Spring 2002), Opas responded to an assertion made by Julian Burnside, in reviewing Mike Richard's book The Hanged Man, that Ryan was guilty, but that while the verdict was correct the punishment was wrong.

Opas disagreed with this assertion, refusing to believe that at any time Ryan confessed to anyone that he fired a shot and denying the existence of any evidence whatsoever that Ryan ever confessed guilt to anyone, either verbally or in writing.

Ryan gave evidence and swore that he did not fire at Hodson. He denied firing a shot at all. Ryan denied the alleged verbal confessions said to have been made by him. Opas says the last words Ryan said to him were; "We've all got to go sometime, but I don't want to go this way for something I didn't do."

On 26 March 2003, just months prior to his death, Catholic priest Father John Brosnan was asked on ABC Radio by journalist Kellie Day about Ryan, who was believed to have fired the fatal shot during the prison breakout. Brosnan said; "No, I won't make a hero out of him. He caused a situation. I don't know whose bullet killed who, but a friend of mine died. But I'll tell you what, he had heroic qualities." Father Brosnan said. "George was a nice fellow, but his wife had left him, taking their thirteen-year-old daughter with her, and he didn't have much of a life. I used to talk to him at Pentridge and drop in to see him in St Kilda sometimes to cheer him up."

On 1 March 2004, in an interview with the Australian Coalition Against Death Penalty (ACADP), Opas said: "I want to put the record straight. I want the truth told about Ronald Ryan – that an innocent man went to the gallows. I want the truth to be made available to everyone, for anyone young and old, who may want to do research into Ryan's case or research on the issue of capital punishment. I will go to my grave firmly of the opinion that Ronald Ryan did not commit murder. I refuse to believe that at any time he told anyone that he did".

On 23 August 2008, Philip Opas QC, died after a long illness at the age of 91. Opas maintained Ryan's innocence to the end. Opas asked Australian Coalition President Dorina Lisson to keep fighting to clear Ryan's name. According to Ms Lisson, she and others are determined to have Ryan's murder conviction overturned because there is no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to prove Ryan guilty of murder, that a wrongly convicted man was hanged based solely on unsigned unrecorded unproven "hearsay" allegations of verbals/confessions.

For 35 years, Barry Jones, who was a member of both the Victorian and Federal Parliaments refused to comment publicly on Ryan's hanging. Mr Jones broke his silence in 2002 at the launch of Mike Richards' book, The Hanged Man. Mr Jones says he remains "unsure" of whether Ryan ever pulled the trigger. "It seemed to me that there was probably a reasonable doubt in the case," he said. Mr Jones, also the former secretary of the Victorian Anti-Hanging Committee says he believes Ryan's hanging was an attempt by then Victorian Premier Henry Bolte, to push his law and order agenda.

Justice Starke, the judge at Ryan's trial and a committed abolitionist, was convinced of Ryan's guilt but did not personally think that he should hang. Until his death in 1992, Starke remained troubled about Ryan's hanging and would often ask his colleagues if they thought he did the right thing. Philip Opas' junior in the trial, Brian Bourke, was filmed in 2005 saying: ″One of the problems of Ryan's trial was an alleged admission that he made on the plane back to the homicide fellows. That sort of thing can't happen now, because they've got to be recorded on tape, but whether he made the admission or was verballed, I don't know. He was a pretty talkative fellow, he might have. I didn't have much doubt about his guilt.″

Books

 * Dickins, Barry, Last Words: The Hanging of Ronald Ryan, Hardie Grant Publications, February 2017, ISBN 9781743792780
 * Ayling, Jack, Nothing but the Truth: The life and times of Jack Ayling, Chippendale, Pan MacMillan ISBN 978-0-330-27466-1
 * Dickens, Barry, Guts and Pity – The Hanging that ended Capital Punishment in Australia, Currency Press, Sydney, 1996 ISBN 0-86819-424-7
 * Grindlay, Ian, Behind Bars: Memoirs of Jail Governor, Ian Grindlay, Southdown Press, Melbourne
 * Hansen, Brian, The Awful Truth, Brian Hansen Publications, 2004 ISBN 1-876151-16-1,
 * Morton, James & Lobez, Susanna, Dangerous to Know, Melbourne University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-522-85681-1
 * Opas, Philip, Throw away my wig: an autobiography of a long journey with a few sign posts, 1997 ISBN 1-876074-06-X
 * Prior, Tom, Bolte by Bolte, Craftsman Publishing, 1990 ISBN 1-875428-00-3
 * Prior, Tom, A knockabout priest: the story of Father John Brosnan, Hargreen, North Melbourne, 1985, ISBN 0-949905-23-2
 * Richards, Mike, The Hanged Man – The Life and Death of Ronald Ryan, Scribe Publications, Melbourne, 2002, ISBN 0-908011-94-6
 * Sharpe, Alan, The giant book of Crimes that shocked Australia, ISBN 1-86309-018-5
 * Silvester, John, Tough; 101 Australian Gangsters, Floradale & Sly Ink, Camberwell, 2002, ISBN 0-9579121-2-9
 * Tennison, Patrick, Defence Counsel; Cases in the Career of Philip Opas, Q.C., Hill of Content, Melbourne, 1975, ISBN 0-85572-068-9, pp 96–170.

Pamphlets

 * Whiticker, Alan J., Ronald Ryan: Last Man Hanged, New Holland Publishers Australia, 2013, pp. 26.

Plays

 * The Blood of Helmut Lange – The Unjustified Execution of Ronald Ryan, The Factory Theatre Crime Scenes
 * Barry Dickins, Remember Ronald Ryan: A Dramatic Play Currency Press, Sydney, 1994, ISBN 0-86819-392-5
 * Barry Dickins, Ryan: A Monologue, La Mama Courthouse, 2015

Film and television documentaries

 * The Last Man Hanged, 1993 historical documentary, Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 * The Last of the Ryans, 1997 television movie, Crawford Productions
 * Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The Case of Ronald Ryan, 1977 documentary series, Australian Film Commission
 * Odd Man Out – The Story of Ronald Ryan, three-part television mini-series
 * Who Hung Ronald Ryan? Australian Broadcasting Corporation Film, 1987 documentary film on Ryan's execution
 * Real Prison Breaks, 2010 television series,

Other
An Epiphany Window was installed at St James the Great Anglican Church a few weeks after the execution. It was created by the artist Miroslav "Dismas" Zika, who etched an inscription in Latin into the glass towards the base of the window, a translation of which in English is rendered "Dismas made this in 1967 at the beginning of the month when Bolte, scandalous, arrogant, was demanding Ryan suffer capital punishment." Bolte considered this objectionable. Sir Frank Woods, Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, apologised to the Premier, clarifying that the inscription had neither been included in the original design brief, nor had any "official authorisation", and that the offending inscription would be removed. Zika remained unrepentant.

title: Ronald Ryan


text:
Talk:Olav V

The Bomann-Larsen hypothesis of his parentage
Should we add something about the new evidence that Olav was likely to have been fathered through artificial insemination, with the semen of the doctor's son? This is more than just a rumour, for sure. Kvaks 08:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure this should be added. It has been the big thing the whole day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.141.33 (talk) 21:14, October 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Here's the press release in Norwegian. I couldn't find an English version.

 * 14.10.2004

 * H.M. Kongens kommentar til ny kongebok

 * Enhver forfatter er i sin fulle rett til å presentere sin forståelse av historien, sier H.M. Kongen. Det gjelder selvsagt også for Tor Bomann Larsens biografi om Kong Haakon og Dronning Maud.

 * Kongen har ingen opplysninger som skulle tilsi at Kong Olav ikke skulle være sønn av Kong Haakon. Prins Carl ble etter folkeavstemningen i 1905 valgt av Stortinget til Norges konge som Kong Haakon VII, med sin hustru Maud som dronning og deres sønn Olav som kronprins.

 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelsen (talk • contribs) 08:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it is a bit silly that the bit about the rumor of the artificial insemination is bigger than the rest of the article about King Olav...This was never an issue during his life and was only a big thing in Norway for a few months when Bomann-Larsen was promoting his book. As far as I know Bomann-Larsen is not an educated historian (he is an author and comic book artist) and as the sourcing for his claims have been very criticized by educated historians it really isn't relevant any more. But someone has obviously done a lot of work on it in this article so maybe it can be moved to a seperate article about the book which it was presented in...Inge 17:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that both Haakon VII's and Olav V's articles need a lot more information, and I agree that the artificial insemination story, though fascinating, is completely irrelevant to the king's historical legacy. --Leifern 18:34, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now another review of Boman-larsen's claims has been produced by Bodil Katarina Nævdal at the university of Uppsala. She really has very little good to say about his work. Another historian is also critical. This theory is totally disproved. This part of the article should be moved or removed. Inge 20:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Inge, true or not true, this story belongs in the tabloids. Another good point that seems to not be mentioned here, is the kings dislecsy which clearly is a heredetary problem. King Haakon had it, so did King Olav and so do King Harald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.235.121 (talk) 00:15, December 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * The matter should be mentioned in one sentence only. It's far too dominant now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karamell (talk • contribs) 19:18, June 4, 2006 (UTC)

 * I've just come across a 2004 newspaper clipping about this episode. Bormann-Larsen seems to undermine his own position when he's quoted as follows: "The question of whether King Haakon was Olav's biological father meant little for the legitimacy of the Norwegian royal family.  Fatherhood these days is not something that is mainly biological.  It's something social and legal".  Which seems to be saying that even if his claim is 100% true, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.  So what was the point of making the claim in the first place, other than to publicise his book?  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The rumors (slander) published by the author has repeatedly been proved to be false, it is an old rumor like the more common ones about most royalities and other public persons, and as such sould be said to be so, that is slander, in an article about the author which wants to put his creditability at risk by publish such a rumor. It is completly irrelevant in an biography, especially as it also will imply liabillity to repeat such slander. Jeblad (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Show the Photos, if you got them
Will the Olav V of Norway site, post the photos (if you can get them) ,of the Doctor or Doctor's son, put the photo next to King Olav V photo ,so us Wiki readers could see the claimed physical resemblances? And thus make are own conclusions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.56.139 (talk) 23:08, October 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * This is exactly why Boman-Larsen used the photoes. People think it is a good proof of kinship. Maybe because we are accustomed to look at old pictures of grandparents and great grandparents to find out who we ourselves can contribute our looks to. But if you have done this you might have noticed that sometimes you might see more simmilarities in some pictures than in others. You might also have noticed that sometimes it seems like you don't even "look like yourself" in some pictures of yourself. And add to that that you sometimes find people hwo you are not related to but still might share many of your features. This might be why so many scholars are very critical of Boman-Laren when he claims the pictures as proof. I have seen the pictures and the two men look similar. But in my oppinion this is much because of the similar hairline and hairdo, posture, clothing and the quality of the pictures. Now this is the only picture I have seen of the doctors son, but I have seen many pictures of King Olav from the same period and the resemblance isn't very strong in those. In addition I can mention that I have a picture of my great uncle where he looks very much like Olav and the doctor's son in these pictures. So am I related to King Olav or the doctor? Hmmm....:)Inge 13:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to claim that Olav wasn't his father's son needs to look at photos of Carl/Haakon as a boy/young man before he got married. His son as a young man was the spitting image of him. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of so called slander
Removal of the so called slander should be discussed here first. That is a controversial edit and the case has references and sources. -- Atluxity (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The same so called slander was also removed here. --Kjetil r (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I've asked for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway#Help_on_Olav_V_of_Norway. Nsaa (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether this fringe theory should be censored from Wikipedia, but whether trying to give it a balanced discussion merits so so much space in Olav V. A better solution would be to create a separate article either for Bomann-Larsen or for his book, and hash out the argument there. Then the Olav V article could contain a single wikilinked sentence on the lines of "A recent book by Bomann-Larsen has suggested that Olav V was conceived by artificial insemination using sperm from an English donor; others dispute the evidence for this claim." betsythedevine (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * This issue has been debated before. I support the idea of creating a separate page for the book, if it is deemed notable enough. Though I might have some doubts as to that notability. It would certainly be a more fitting place for this information. The debate here is not whether the claim has been made. It has been. But the point is that the information is of such a low quality that it does not merit inclution in the article. The claim has been denied by all the historians who have bothered to comment on it. (the author of the book is not a historian). As a controversy it is not notable either. The claim was used by the author to promote the book. There was no public controversy regarding Olav Vs legacy or legitimacy.
 * Since the content has been debated and it was agreed to remove it before, and since it was readded without a debate, I believe it is legitimate to remove it pending consensus.Inge (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

de Beauharnais
I fail to see the relevance of Empress Josephine de Beauharnais in this article. She had nothing whatsoever to do with Norwegian succession nor any other items relevant to Olav and Märtha.

They have thousands of common ancestors, and undoubtedly all such should be mentioned, if Josephine is mentioned.

Therefore, I ask further reasons why just Josephine is highlighted here.

(Besides, if Olav was not biologically son of Haakon, then he is NOT a descendant of Josephine de Beauharnais, since Haakon's mother was his only link to Josephine. His wife undoubtedly is.) 62.78.121.189 11:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Photo of Olav V Statue ,too cold
Maybe I'm being picky but, I think a photo of King Olav V would be more appropiate for this article. There's something cold about the statue, it shouldn't be the top (only) photo of the article. Just my opinion User:GoodDay 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC).

Olav on the tram
Could someone post a picture of Olav when he is on the tram? I think it is a very good picture that really shows what kind of man he was. http://www.nrk.no/underholdning/store_norske/4544536.html This is a link to the picture and an interview with the girl who sat next to him on the tram, but I dont know how to add it to the article nor do I know the copyright laws, so instead of pissing anyone off I'm asking if any of you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.188.3 (talk) 21:18, March 7, 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems that photo is owned by Scanpix.Inge 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That needs not stop us. That image is iconic and could easily be given an article on its own. To Norwegians and connoisseurs/friends of Norwegian culture it is as emblematic as the photo of Phan Thị Kim Phúc by Nick Út or the more recent Falling Man sequence to an international audience. Thus, a fair use rationale for discerning placement accompanied by a pertinent discussion should make such use possible. __meco (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a norwegian stamp with Olav skijumping in Holmenkollen? A picture of that stamp would be great in this article. I've searched the net, but cannot find it anywhere. (Unsigned comment added by Karamell 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

 * There really needs to be a more modern photo of King Olav in this article; there must be thousands to choose from. His rounder face and generous smile are fondly remembered, still, by most Norwegians.  - Hordaland (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Medaille d'Installation Solennelle?
This medal is mentioned, but there seems to be no other record of it anywhere. Is the name correct? How come Olav is the only person on the planet who received it...?

Evert (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

 * This page from the Royal House lists the medal as one awarded by the Netherlands (look under Nederland) in 1948. I guess it is a medal awarded by the dutch royal house to participants of the installation of Juliana of the Netherlands on the throne. These more or less "internal" royal house medals are not commonly mentioned as regular people rarely get them, I again guess. Also the name could be in a different language.Inge (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced statement about 4 million bodyguards
I`m pretty sure that I`ve read King Olav said this, but some Googling produced an article from NRK (norwegian) : http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/innenriks/4792640.html Maybe that part should be rewritten? I think it is an important part of the article, to show that King Olav really was held high in regard in Norway. Trondos 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Olaf VS Olav
Shouldn't Wikipedia remain consistent, and keep its Olaf > Olav policy when it comes to Norwegian royalty in English?

--Jorsalfarer (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. He called himself Olav. We don't translate the names of monarchs into English unless it's commonly done. That's why the article for King Baudouin of Belgium isn't listed under Baldwin. There's no consistent rule on this, but monarchs whose names were normally rendered in English untranslated are kept that way. Since the various King Felipes of Spain were known as English as Philip (even though Juan Carlos didn't become John Charles, go figure), and the King Henris of France were called Henry in English, we translate those. But King Olav of Norway was called Olav, so Olav it is. Jsc1973 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Fled/went ... to the UK in WWII?
Hi,

aren't there enough synonyms in English to formulate this better? "Escape" offers itself, a little less inglorious than "fleeing", isn't it? "Went into/ joined the monarch in exile"? (The NO GOvernment styled itself "eksilregjeringen", IIRC). If English had been German, I'd have written something like " ... sich dem Zugriff der deutschen Besatzungsmacht (or something) entzogen ...", i.e. "avoided" (?) capture by the (xxx) by going ..." (?). Since not a native speaker, I don't know how to put this right. Perhaps someone could assist. TiA, if so.

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Olav V of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305043732/http://badraie.com/guests.htm to http://badraie.com/guests.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224190249/http://www.skiforeningen.no/holmenkollen/holmenkollen_historikk to http://www.skiforeningen.no/holmenkollen/holmenkollen_historikk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancestral table
Does anyone find verification of reliable sources among the ancestors of King Olav V? --49.150.110.214 (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Olav VI of Norway" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olav_VI_of_Norway&redirect=no Olav VI of Norway] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Olav VI" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olav_VI&redirect=no Olav VI] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Haakon VII of Norway which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Olav V


text:
User talk:Sanarandryelle

Gath Nix

I love Garth creater of the old kingdom and keys to the kingdom series. If you do you are great!

title: User talk:Sanarandryelle


text:
Talk:Coroner

Redirect Medical Examiner
Should this article's link to "Medical Examiner" redirect to the same article of Coroner? A coroner is not the same thing as a medical examiner, and should be a separate entry.

There is now a stub entry for "Medical Examiner", and a link from this article to Medical Examiner. While there may be overlaps in their responsibilities, the two are not the same. --CarpenterSF (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That appears to have been reverted. It's quite ironic that the link to Medical Examiner (which redirects to Coroner again now), appears in the sentence claiming it is a "vastly different" profession. It strikes me as dubious that they are vastly different professions, from what little I know about the subject, I always thought that basically coroner was the term in the UK while generally medical examiner was used for performing the same functions in the US. I'm sure it's a little more nuanced than that, but they hardly seem like "vastly different" professions, vastly different would surely be more like the difference between a masseuse and a chiropracter or a dentist vs a dental hygienist. Anonywiki (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Lawyer or Solicitor?
In England and Wales, wouldn't you need to be a solicitor, not a Lawyer?

 * The word 'lawyer' in England and Wales is a general descriptive name for both solicitors and barristers. Both are 'lawyers' who practice 'law'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.232 (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Certifying deaths in Scotland?
Would anyone object to a change to the paragraph on procurators fiscal certifying ALL deaths in Scotland? They certainly don't certify all deaths but do investigate ones they are required to do so by law.

Original research and other issues
I removed various flags from this article, about disputed content, original research, references, etc., as none of the content of the article is flagged as having issues. I'm not saying that everything in the article is OK or correct, but there's nothing actionable about any of the flags, except potentially the globalization question. In that case, it's hard to do anything about the UK slant, except to refer people elsewhere to "medical examiner" or the like. That's because "coroner" is an office of specifically UK origin. That makes its content UK-slanted in the same way, for example, that an article about London, England, is UK-oriented.

Qualifications for Coroners
In the UK however, all one needs is a basic medical degree and no further training whatsoever, which has led to many miscarriages of justice

I cannot comment on the miscarriages of justice comment (although coroners are not entitled to punish or indeed in any way apportion blame in England; they hold an inquest and then deliver a verdict of what they believe caused the death based on evidence from witnesses and statements/reports) but to be a coroner, you certainly need more than a basic medical degree and no further training! As, indeed, the section below confirms - you need either a law or medical degree, plus five years' practice (and, in the case of medics, a further legal qualification).

Whrrivers (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I noticed this too. I'm working on editing this article right now. What they meant to say (hopefully!) is that you need not be a pathologist; you only need the medical degree, not the further years of residencies etc. in pathology, to be a coroner. — Skittleys (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As to England and Wales, since 2013 this question no longer arises. From that year a person cannot be appointed a coroner without a legal qualification. Medical coroners in office at that date can continue till retirement, but they are increasingly becoming a rarity. Impregnable (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh
Why medical examiner is redirected to here i will never know, particularly because in most countries and states they are two completely differnt things.... OgiBear (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Counterparts in Other Countries?
Please could somebody who has the knowledge to do it provide either a section in this article, or cross-links to other articles, to explain what counterparts coroners have in countries that *don't* have English-style coroners? It would be interesting to know how other countries handle the questions that coroners handle; adding the information would give the article a broader scope; and the article wouldn't then leave the distinct impression that, in countries where there are no coroners, nobody cares much about the dead or how they became dead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.21.78 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Information
This article says that, "The verdicts of suicide and death by natural causes require proving beyond reasonable doubt. Other verdicts are arrived at on the balance of probabilities." Which implies that the verdict of unlawful killing would be decided on the balance of probabilities. However, on the page for unlawful killing it says, "The appropriate standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt." I don't know which is correct and don't know how to find out. Could someone who knows what they are doing please correct this? Cheers.  Cottonshirt  τ   04:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

section
(Sorry about the uninformative section title; that's what  requires in order to link to it.)

The section about coroners in Canada says that in 6 provinces "all coroners are, by law, physicians. In these instances, they are not coroners, but medical examiners." — a direct contradiction from one sentence to the next. Presumably the second sentence is using the word "coroner" in a sense that excludes "medical examiners", as discussed elsewhere in the article, but it needs to find another way to express that thought.

But I can't just change the wording of the second sentence, because there may have been an intent to say that the job title is "medical examiner" in some of these 6 provinces, or in some places in these provinces. I know that in Toronto that's not true — we have coroners — but I don't know about all the other places, so I can't fix it. This needs to be straightened out.

--208.76.104.133 (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone had written that since coroners in certain provinces are required to be physicians that this means they are medical examiners and not coroners. I don't know if this is a case of someone in the USA thinking their terminology is correct (I say that because in the USA, physicians who essentially fulfil the role of coroner are called medical examiners.)

The following quote is from Ontario's Coroners Act, RSO C.37

Appointment of coroners

"3. (1)  The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint one or more legally qualified medical practitioners to be coroners for Ontario who, subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4), shall hold office during pleasure. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, s. 3 (1)."

In Ontario, a coroner must be a physician. This doesn't mean they're supposed to be called something else. You will not find ANY Canadian law with the words "medical examiner" in the title. You can find at least 9 provinces and/or territories with a Coroners' act.

There is absolutely no merit to the statement that 'coroners who are also physicians are really medical examiners.' 70.49.48.63 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs a history section
Coroners is a pretty significant topic for common law countries, with close to a thousand years of history that this article just barely touches. In particular, the organization doesn't lend itself to a particularly easy understanding of this; I think the article should start out with a section on history, which would contain an overview of the development under English common law, and probably take us up to the end of the 18th century, where we should expect to see individual countries'/colonies' legal systems to really run in their own directions. I think more generally, we might want to look towards creating an entire article on the history of the coroner. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This article might in fact be best focused on the historical and (some) modern offices of coroner, but with judicious linking to medical examiner, with most if not all of the medical content on forensic pathology and the like being covered over there. From what I'm seeing in the law encyclopedias, many states have replaced the office of coroner with a medical examiner (that may or may not have the law enforcement duties the old coroner would have had), and even in those jurisdictions where coroners are the norm, the term "medical examiner" was not always equivalent. I'm not sure what the situation is in commonwealth nations, but it wouldn't surprise me if similar moves were happening. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also the question of historical stuff like the administration of shipwrecks and salvage, treasure trove, royal fish and deodands ... some of which may still be current as well (although I think treasure is mentioned in the article as being hived off to specialist coroners, as, I think are shipwrecks and marine salvage in the modern era). Also I think deodands are a dead letter in English law but have no idea about the specifics of royal fish.  Anyone know this material well enough to explain it? 31.185.62.240 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Coroner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315150738/http://www.film.queensu.ca:80/CBC/Woj.html to http://www.film.queensu.ca/cbc/Woj.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coroner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227110654/http://www.justice.gov.uk/whatwedo/coroners.htm to http://www.justice.gov.uk/whatwedo/coroners.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706122017/http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/129.htm to http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/129.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014022320/http://www.justice.govt.nz/coroners/home.asp to http://www.justice.govt.nz/coroners/home.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious
I notice that a piece I added here last month has been tagged as 'dubious', and the source tagged with 'not in citation given'; there wasn't any corresponding discussion opened at the end of the link, so I am opening one now. The statement "Coroners, Medical examiners, and forensic pathologists are often thought to be the same, but they are vastly different professions" seems self-evident to me; is there any argument that these roles/professions/offices are actually the same? Also, the source given (an article entitled "Coroner vs.Medical Examiner") makes it clear (I thought): An ME is a medical officer who carries out post-mortems to determine cause of death, and (as stated) can "initiate an  inquest"; OTOH a coroner is a legal official who oversees an inquest, (gathering evidence/reports such as post-mortem results and witness statements) to determine whether a death is unlawful or not. In what way does it "not support the statement"? Another thing, I copied the statement and the source over from the Medical Examiner page; if there's a problem here, it will affect there as well.

I don't know a lot about ME's (they seem to be mainly an American thing) but the coroner/forensic pathologist split is well-defined in the British legal system. Also, inquest verdicts in the UK are delivered by a jury; is that the same in the US, or are decisions like that made by someone else (a district attorney, for example)? That might reflect the Scottish system, where the decision is made by a Procurator Fiscal (who equates to a DA, I think). Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: Also, the “Needs an expert in medicine” tag rather begs the question, doesn't it? From my perspective I'd have said it needs an expert in the law... Moonraker12 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Noone is arguing they are "the same" profession.
 * Their roles often overlap hugely or are interchangeable and so are not "vastly different".
 * The source given doesn't encompass all meanings of these professions. They also have very different meanings depending on the region. "vastly different" is not justified.
 * If you like take away the dubious word "vastly" and let it at that they are different roles. Anonywiki (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Just a quick (belated!) reply: Well, if the word “vastly” is a problem here, it's fair comment: I've taken it out, here and in the other article.
 * But 'overlapping and interchangeable'? Well, not in the UK they aren't, nor in jurisdictions based on the UK model. As already stated a coroner has a legal role while a pathologist's is medical. The latter determines the cause of death (eg. injuries consistent with a fall from a height) while the coroner determines the manner (Did he fall? Did he jump? Was he pushed?), and crucially the coroner decides whether or not a crime has been committed; I imagine even in the US, in counties which have them, that's done by a coroner, whether they are a qualified pathologist or the local sheriff. And a quick sken at the notable cases on the Unlawful killing page suggests that the medical question is the least complicated one to be answered. So I'd still be interested to know, who decides this where there is a medical examiner: The ME? The DA? Someone else? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Moonraker12 Your comments are not helpful, I stand by 100% everything I said. Please shut up and don't tag me again. Anonywiki (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Anonwiki (not tagged, as requested): I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer. If you didn't want to respond, then don't: there's no need to be rude about it. And I've raised the question again, below (because I still wnt to know!); Don't feel obliged to respond there, either, if you don't want to...Moonraker12 (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Moonraker12 Hi! 1) In England they care called "conclusions", not "verdicts" 2) They're not always delivered by juries. 3) A coroner tells us i: who the deceased was and ii: how, when, and where the deceased came by their death, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/5 There is some overlap with post-mortem pathology. Hope this helps. DanBCDanBC (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In England and Wales medical coroners cannot be appointed since 2013. A legal qualification is always required. See above: Qualifications for Coroners. When an autopsy is required, the coroner would never in modern times perform it himself even if he was a doctor, because it is a rule of natural justice that the judge cannot be a witness in a case he/she is trying, and a coroner ranks as a judge for this purpose. An independent doctor would be appointed. Formerly this might have been any local doctor whom the coroner thought competent, but since the mid 20th century, when the pathologists' specialty became more widely organised and practised, he is always a specialist pathologist. In England and Wales he has never in this context been described as a Medical Examiner.Impregnable (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Television
I've flagged the section for OR, as it seems to reflect the confusion in common usage (particularly in the US) between coroners, medical examiners and forensic pathologists. While the offices seem to be overlapping in the USA, according to the US section here they are not the same thing, and IMO we should be clear in the Artistic Depictions section what we are talking about so as not to perpetuate the confusion. Viz.
 * "Dr. Camille Saroyan (Bones) is a federal coroner"; Saroyan appears to be a forensic pathologist (she seems very similar to the characters in Silent Witness, who definitely are FPs). Also, coroners offices are county-based, so “federal coroner” seems a bit of a contradiction.
 * "Jordan Cavanaugh, (Crossing Jordan) (is) a forensic pathologist employed in the Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner"; So, not a coroner (or an ME either), then.
 * "The coroner is a significant character...on CSI and its spin-offs"; Again, are they? They seem to be pathologists working for their respective police departments.
 * "Hawaii Five-0 features a coroner named Dr. Max Bergman"; Well, the people who take the bodies away have Coroner on their jackets, so I'm guessing the county has a coroners office, but is Max the coroner, or is he a pathologist who works for the coroners office?
 * "Kujo Kiriya, from ….Kamen Rider Ex-Aid is a coroner"; I have no idea what this is, but I know the Japanese kenshi-kan isn't a coroner in the English sense, more of a CSI /forensic detective
 * "Quincy, M.E. has a coroner as its title character"; Quincy is (self-evidently) a ME, who works for (what was, at the time) the LA Coroners Office. Which presumably makes his boss the coroner, not him.

Also, Saroyan, Cavanaugh, Bergman, Quincy and the CSI people are all listed as MEs on the Medical Examiner page: I don't think we are helping anyone by listing them as coroners here, and as MEs there. Can I suggest we at least decide one way or the other on these examples, and list them only in one place. And maybe to prevent list-creep we require citations to prove that those listed as coroners (here) or MEs (there) actually are such. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On your first point, it seems that you are correct. While Washington State's laws recognize the possibility of a federal coroner, it seems that the U.S. federal government uses the term "medical examiner" (e.g., here).  See also the executive summary of the Preliminary Report on America’s Medicolegal Offices, which contains an explanation on the subject, at least for the U.S., and here.  (Found via Google using the string ["federal+medical+examiner"+-Australia], since Australia seems to also use federal medical examiners.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

England: conclusions not verdicts, and burden of proof.
In England the coroner produces "conclusions", not verdicts. Here's a reliable source: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/guidance-no-17-conclusions.pdf Also, after a case in 2018 conclusions for suicide and unlawful killing only need to be made on the civil "balance of probabilities" burden, not beyond all reasonable doubt: R (on the application of Thomas Maughan) v Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2018] EWHC 1955 (Admin) DanBCDanBC (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 * I have now changed all the wording in the England and Wales section from "verdict" to "conclusion". This reflects the law, and the guidance (guidance linked above, law linked here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1616/schedule/made ). This has the unfortunate effect of only reflecting what happens now. We probably need a history section to show how things have changed over time. DanBCDanBC (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Coroner-bullet.jpg

title: Talk:Coroner


text:
Budawang Range

The Budawang Range, commonly called The Budawangs, a rugged mountain range within the Budawang National Park and the Morton National Park, are part of a spur off the Great Dividing Range and are located in the South Coast region of New South Wales, Australia.

The highest mountain in the range is Mount Budawang that has an elevation of 1129 m above sea level.

Location and features
Commmencing between the headwaters of the Clyde and Endrick rivers, The Budawangs extend in a generally south southwest direction for about 53 km to Mount Budawang about 8 km southeast of. The range consists of mountains and escarpments, generally at an elevation of 334 m, forming most of the western watershed of the Clyde River. The range comprises a series of hills extending generally west northwest from the north end of Budawang Range near Sassafras for about 21 km to above the junction of the Shoalhaven and Endrick rivers. The Pigeon House Range forms the watershed between the northeast waters of Endrick River and those flowing north into the Shoalhaven River. A prominent range bearing west northwest forms the watershed separating the Endrick and Shoalhaven River systems. The Budawang Range is located approximately 190 km south-southwest of Sydney.

The range defines part of the boundary between the New South Wales South Coast and the Southern Tablelands.

Much of the land within the range has been declared a wilderness area and are popular with bush walkers due to their terrain and unique features.

Mountain peaks
The Budawangs are generally considered to contain peaks located with the Budawang Range, the Pigeon House Range, the Currockbilly Range, and the Wirritin Range. The major recorded peaks are:
 * Mount Budawang (1129 m)
 * Currockbilly Mountain (1087 m)
 * Wog Wog Mountain (893 m)
 * Mount Cole (876 m)
 * Sturgiss Mountain (858 m)
 * Fosters Mountain (857 m)
 * Barneys Hill (855 m)
 * The Castle (831 m)
 * Shrouded Gods Mountain (809 m)
 * Donjon Mountain (786 m)
 * Quiltys Mountain (775 m)
 * Wirritin Mountain (674 m)
 * Pigeon House Mountain / Didthul (665 m)
 * Mount Bushwalker (640 m)
 * Byangee Mountain (500 m)
 * Mount Tarn

Other features
Other features within the range include the Monolith Valley, The Seven Gods Monoliths, Clyde River Valley, Hidden Valley, and Ettrema Gorge.

Aboriginal use
The earliest human occupants of The Budawangs were three Aboriginal tribes; the Budawang people who live between Conjola and Duras, the Wandandians who inhabit land to the north of Pigeon House Mountain (Balgan), and the Walbanjas who live south of Pigeon House.

There are archaeological records of Aboriginal presence in the area dating back to around 11,000 years ago. Nearby coastal deposits have been dated at around 20,000 years old, so occupation in the Budawangs may well be older than current evidence suggests. Archaeological evidence found in the area includes occupational deposits in rock shelters, open campsites, and axe grinding grooves often found on rocks by the sides of creeks in the area. Art sites and rock arrangements also exist in the Budawangs though they are quite rare - the best of these is on Quilty's Mountain.

European land use
There are several grazing farmlands surrounding the national parks region both in the east and the west of the range. Logging began in the Budawang area in the early 1900s, it continues to this day in areas that remain outside of the national parks, such as state forests.

The Australian Army operated an artillery range on the Tianjara plateau between 1943 and 1974, also using the area for practice bombing and exercises often involving offroad vehicles. This area is highly damaged and littered with target debris and unexploded ordnance. If walking in or near this area, walker should take extreme care.

Royal Australian Navy jet aircraft and helicopters use the area as a designated low-fly training area, allowing high speed flight through the area at 50 ft above the ground.

Access
As The Budawangs are only accessible from gravel roads, care should be taken after rain as the roads can become slippery.

The northern parts of the area including the Clyde River valley are best accessed from the Braidwood Nowra road. There are two entrances in the northern part of the park. One is near and requires walking through farmland to the area around Quilty's Mountain. The other main northern entrance is a not very clearly marked gate on the side of the road near Sassafras.

Access to The Castle and Monolith Valley is best achieved from Long Gully just off the Western Distributor.

Access to the western Wog Wog Mountain side of the park is via a park entrance off the Mongarlowe/Nerriga road, either coming from Braidwood to the south or to the north.

All three main entrances now have marked campsites and pit toilets. The Sassafrass campsite is approximately 600 m down the fire trail from the carpark and has tank water and a sheltered picnic table. The Wog Wog campsite has no water. The Long Gully campsite is located adjacent to the Yadboro River.

Maps
If walking in The Budawangs a recommended resource is the Northern Budawang Range and the Upper Clyde River Valley sketch map, published by The Budawang Committee and available in most Sydney/Nowra/Canberra bushwalking stores. The sketch map was hand drawn and details many of the possible walks in the most popular part of the national park. The area is also covered by the 1:25,000 CMA maps CORANG (8927-3-N), ENDRICK (8927-4-S), TIANJARA (8927-1-S) and MILTON (8927-2-N).

title: Budawang Range


text:
Saint Andrew's Day

Saint Andrew's Day, also called the Feast of Saint Andrew or Andermas, is the feast day of Andrew the Apostle. It is celebrated on 30 November. Saint Andrew is the disciple in the New Testament who introduced his brother, the Apostle Peter, to Jesus, the Messiah.

Traditions and celebrations
Saint Andrew's Day marks the beginning of the traditional Advent devotion of the Saint Andrew Christmas Novena.

Saint Andrew's Day (Saunt Andra's Day, Là Naomh Anndrais) is Scotland's official national day. It has been a national holiday in Romania since 2015. He is the patron saint of Cyprus, Scotland, Greece (City of Patras), Romania, Russia, Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, San Andres Island (Colombia), Saint Andrew (Barbados) and Tenerife (Spain).

Scotland
The celebration of Saint Andrew as a national festival among some social strata and locales is thought to originate from the reign of Malcolm III (1058–1093). It was thought that the ritual slaughter of animals associated with Samhain was moved to this date to ensure enough animals were kept alive for winter. Still, it is only in more recent times that 30 November has been given national holiday status, although it remains a normal working day.

Bank holiday
In 2006, the Scottish Parliament passed the St. Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Act 2007, which designated the day as an official bank holiday. If 30 November falls on a weekend, the next Monday is a bank holiday instead. Although it is a "bank holiday", banks are not required to close (and, in practice, will remain open as normal), and employers are not required to give their employees the day off as a holiday. Likewise, schools remain open.

The University of St Andrews traditionally gives the day for all the students as a free holiday, but this is not a binding rule.

Saltire
Saint Andrew's Day is an official flag day in Scotland. The Scottish Government's flag-flying regulations state that the flag of Scotland (the Saltire or Saint Andrew's Cross) shall fly on all its buildings with a flagpole. Before 2002, the Scottish Government followed the UK Government's flag days and would fly the Saltire on Saint Andrew's Day only. The regulations were updated to state that the Union Flag would be removed and replaced by the Saltire on buildings with only one flagpole.

The flying of the Union Flag from Edinburgh Castle on all days, including Saint Andrew's Day, causes anger among some Scottish politicians and Scottish nationalists who have argued that the Saltire should fly on 30 November instead. However, the Union Flag is flown by the British Army at the Castle as it is an official British Army flag flying station.

Celebrations
In Scotland and many countries with Scottish connections, Saint Andrew's Day is marked with a celebration of Scottish culture and traditional Scottish food and music. In Scotland, the day is also seen as the start of a season of Scottish winter festivals encompassing Saint Andrew's Day, Hogmanay and Burns Night. There are week-long celebrations in the town of St Andrews and some other Scottish cities.

Barbados
Saint Andrew's Day is celebrated as the national day of Independence in Barbados. As the patron saint, Saint Andrew is celebrated in some Barbadian symbols, including the cross formation of the Barbadian Coat of Arms, and the former Order of Barbados which styled recipients as Knight or Dame of St Andrew.

Romania
There are a few pre-Christian Romanian traditions connected to Saint Andrew's Day, some of them having their origin in the Roman celebrations of the god Saturn, most famously the Saturnalia.

The Dacian New Year took place from 14 November until 7 December; this was considered the interval when time began its course. One of the elements that came from the Roman and Thracian celebrations concerned wolves. During this night, wolves can eat all the animals they want. It is said that they can speak, too, but anyone who hears them will soon die. Early on Saint Andrew's Day, the mothers go into the garden and gather tree branches, especially from apple, pear, cherry trees, and rosebush branches. They make a bunch of branches for each family member. The one whose bunch blooms by New Year's Day will be lucky and healthy the following year. The best-known tradition connected to this night concerns matrimony and premonitory dreams. Single girls must put a sprig or branch of sweet basil under their pillow. The girl will marry soon if someone takes the plants in their dreams. They can also plant wheat in a dish and water it until New Year's Day. The nicer the wheat looks that day, the better the year to come.

Serbia
On Saint Andrew's Day in 1806, Serbs liberated Belgrade from Ottoman rule. On 12 December 1830 (St. Andrew's Day), the Hatt-i şerif was read before the assembly in Belgrade. The document has defined the autonomy of Serbia as a part of the Ottoman Empire, and the additional berat confirmed Prince Miloš as the hereditary ruler of the Serbian Principality. St. Andrew's Day was instituted as the Statehood Restoration Day and was celebrated during the rule of the Obrenović dynasty until 1903.

Saint Andrew's Eve
In parts of Ukraine, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Poland, Russia, and Romania, a superstitious belief exists that the night before Saint Andrew's Day is especially suitable for magic that reveals a young woman's future husband or that binds a future husband to her. The day was believed to be the start of the most popular time for vampire activity, which would last until Saint George's Eve (22 April).

In Poland, the holiday Andrzejki is celebrated on the night of the 29th through 30 November. Traditionally, the holiday was only observed by young single girls, though today, both young men and women join the party to see their futures. The main ceremony involved pouring hot wax from a candle through the hole in a key into cold water.

In Romania, it is customary for young women to put 41 grains of wheat beneath their pillow before they go to sleep, and if they dream that someone is coming to steal their grains, they will get married next year. Also, in other parts of the country, the young women light a candle from Easter and bring it to a fountain at midnight. They ask Saint Andrew to let them glimpse their future husband. Saint Andrew is invoked to ward off wolves, who are thought to be able to eat any animal they want on this night and to speak to humans. A human hearing a wolf talk to him will die. Saint Andrew is also the patron saint of Romania and the Romanian Orthodox Church.

In Póvoa de Varzim, an ancient fishing town in northern Portugal, Cape Santo André (Portuguese for Saint Andrew) is a place that shows evidence of Romanisation and probable earlier importance, with hints of Stone Age paintings. Near the cape there are small depressions in a rock, a mystery stone, that the people believe are the footprints of Saint Andrew. Saint Andrew's Chapel is of probable mediaeval origin, referenced in 1546 and earlier documents. It is the burial site of drowned fishermen found at the cape. Fishermen also requested intervention from the saint for better catches. Single girls wanting to get married threw a little stone to the chapel's roof, hoping it would lodge. Because of pagan syncretism, it has also been associated with white magic up to the present day. It was common to see groups of fishermen, holding lights in their hands, making a pilgrimage to the cape's chapel along the beach on Saint Andrew's Eve. They believed Saint Andrew fished, from the depths, the souls of the drowned. Those who did not visit Santo André in life would have to make the pilgrimage as a corpse.

Eton College
St Andrew's Day has become one of the two biggest holidays marked at Eton College, the other being the Fourth of June.

title: Saint Andrew's Day