The Sydney Twelve or I.W.W. Twelve were members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), arrested in September 1916 in Sydney, Australia, and initially charged with treason-felony. They were John Hamilton, Peter Larkin, Morris Joseph Fagin, William Teen, Donald Grant, John Benjamin King, Thomas Glynn, Donald McPherson, Thomas Moore, Charles Reeve, William Beattie and Bernard Bob Bessant. At a trial that commenced in November 1916 the men were charged instead with conspiracy offences, and in the febrile environment of a divisive wartime conscription referendum, were found guilty, based substantially on the evidence of paid police informants, and given harsh prison sentences of up to fifteen years. As details emerged about the quality of the evidence presented by the police and prosecution witnesses at the trial, there was a widespread belief within the Australian labour movement that the twelve men were political prisoners.
The federal Labor government had split as a result of the conscription issue, with Billy Hughes retaining power at the head of the new National Labor Party. After the trial of the IWW twelve, Hughes introduced legislation to enable the IWW to be declared an "unlawful association". This was initially only partially successful, but amendments in July 1917 allowed for the complete suppression of the organisation, the confiscation of its printing equipment and the incarceration for six months of IWW members. After the crackdown of the IWW the New South Wales Labor Council led the campaign for the release of the twelve IWW prisoners, supported by a small number of Labor parliamentarians and labour movement journalists and unionists. The publication of information about paid police informants and critical examination of evidence at the trial resulted in the Nationalist government in New South Wales appointing a Royal Commission in late 1918 to investigate charges of police misconduct in respect of the trial of the IWW twelve. The limited inquiry by Justice Street exonerated the police and confirmed the guilt of the convicted men.
The March 1920 general election in New South Wales resulted in a change of government, led by the Labor premier John Storey. However his government relied on the support of three independent labour members, two of whom were agitators for the release of the IWW prisoners. Storey appointed Justice Ewing to conduct a Royal Commission into the all aspects of the case. Ewing's conclusions, made public in late July 1920, found considerable problems with the convictions and sentencing of eleven of the twelve prisoners. As a result, ten of the men were released in early August 1920. The two remaining prisoners were released from prison in August and November 1921.
Background
When Britain declared war on Germany and the Central Powers in August 1914 there was broad community support for the patriotic, pro-Empire stance of Australian politicians. In September 1914 the Labor party (at that time known in New South Wales as the Political Labor League or P.L.L.) was swept to power with a majority in both houses of parliament under their leader Andrew Fisher, who had pledged that Australia would support "the mother country... to the last man and to the last shilling".Federal Politics, Wangaratta Chronicle, 5 August 1914, page 3.Ian Turner (1967), pages 3-13. Whatever initial opposition to the war that existed in Australia came from within the radical fringes of the labour movement. One group united in their opposition were the Australian members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), an international labour union formed in Chicago in 1905. The IWW deliberately opposed or questioned the accepted conservative values of ethics and religion, parliamentary democracy and the monarchy, the sanctity of property, racial purity and trade unionism and arbitration. They were fervently opposed to "the capitalist war".Ian Turner (1965), page 122. The IWW's Direct Action newspaper began to be published in Sydney from January 1914.Direct Action (Sydney, N.S.W.), State Library of New South Wales website, Catalogue; accessed 24 March 2026.
As the war progressed the popular enthusiasm to enlist subsided. Rising unemployment and prices on the home-front, together with mounting casualties and stalemate on the battlefields of the Western Front, resulted in falling enlistments, to which the government responded with recruitment campaigns and a threat to introduce conscription. By 1916 a groundswell of community sentiment had begun to align with the anti-war stance of the IWW (whose members were known as 'Wobblies').
Tom Barker's imprisonment
In September 1915 the editor of Direct Action, Tom Barker, was prosecuted for publishing a poster considered to be "prejudicial to recruiting", which included a sardonic call to arms: "Your country needs you in the trenches!! Workers, follow your masters". Barker was convicted, but the conviction was overturned on appeal.Ian Turner (1965), page 123. In late March 1916 Barker was again brought before the court for an alleged breach of the War Precautions Act by making statements "likely to prejudice recruiting". The charge related to descriptive text and a caption below a cartoon depicting a crucified soldier, his blood being collected by a grotesque capitalist-figure ('Fat'), published on the front page of Direct Action on 4 December 1915. The magistrate imposed a fine of one hundred pounds, or in default twelve months' gaol.Publisher Fined £100, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 1916, page 5. Barker's appeal was dismissed on 4 May and, refusing to pay the fine, he was sent to gaol.Ian Turner (1965), page 127.Fat (Intoxicated with "patriotism"), Direct Action (Sydney), 4 December 1915, page 1.Tom Barker & Eric C. Fry (editor) (1965), page 27. After a vigorous and aggressive campaign to free him by the IWW and sections of the labour movement, as well as depositions by members of parliament supporting his release, in early July 1916 it was reported that the attorney-general had decided to reduce Barker's fine from £100 to £50, "and the alternative term of imprisonment" from twelve months to three months. By reducing Barker's sentence it enabled his release from gaol in early August 1916.Eric Fry (1979), Tom Barker (1887–1970), Australian Dictionary of Biography website, National Centre of Biology, Australian National University; accessed 7 April 2026.Sentences Reduced, Sydney Morning Herald, 5 July 1916, page 14; Votes of Censure on Bumble, The Australian Worker (Sydney), 13 July 1916, page 13.
Arrests
In September 1916 detectives in Sydney claimed to have received information from several sources that members of the IWW were planning to burn down buildings in Sydney. The informants named "a Russian named Androvitch", a foreigner named Mahony (or Marney), and IWW members Jack Hamilton, Tom Glynn and Tom Moore. Glynn was the editor of the IWW's monthly newspaper, Direct Action. On 22 September warrants were issued on charges of treason for the arrest of the five named individuals, plus Peter Larkin, Charlie Reeve, Donald Grant and Fred Morgan. The additional four names were probably included because they were known as leading IWW propagandists and organisers.Ian Turner (1967), pages 28-29.
The next day thirty police under Inspector Campbell raided the IWW headquarters in Sussex Street. They recognised and arrested Glynn, Larkin, Reeve and Hamilton. Bob Bessant and Don McPherson were also apprehended. They had no warrants for these two men so Bessant was charged with vagrancy and McPherson with being in possession of two shirts suspected of having been stolen. On 25 September Glynn, Larkin, Reeve and Hamilton appeared in the Central Police Court on the treason charge, after which they were remanded in prison. On 29 September Tom Moore was arrested and charged with treason. Donald Grant was arrested in Broken Hill where he was visiting to agitate against conscription. Extra information received from the police informants resulted in the arrests of Bill Teen, Joe Fagin, Don McPherson and Bill Beattie.Ian Turner (1967), pages 29-32.The Every-day Fight, Direct Action (Sydney), 30 September 1916, page 1. On 3 October the eleven previously arrested IWW men appeared at the Central Police Court, charged with treason. Bail was refused and the men were remanded. On 6 October John Benjamin King, who was awaiting trial for forgery, was also charged with treason and remanded.Ian Turner (1967), pages 33-35.
The committal hearing against the twelve IWW men, all charged with treason, opened on 10 October 1916 before the magistrate Arthur Barnett. The prosecution was led by the barrister Ernest Lamb, who in his opening address asserted that the 'Twelve' were responsible for a series of recent fires in Sydney with the intention of coercing the federal government over issues such as the introduction of conscription. Lamb described the crimes being prosecuted as "a gigantic conspiracy to cause havoc and destruction in Sydney, and to endanger the lives of the people". After the Crown had presented its case, the defence barrister Augustus James argued there was no case to answer. He contended that there was no evidence other than speeches and association against several of the accused men and that arson did not constitute treason. The magistrate decided that a prima facie case had been made against the men and committed them for trial at the Central Criminal Court on 20 November 1916. He refused bail.Ian Turner (1967), pages 35-40.I.W.W.: Treason Charges, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 October 1916, page 11.
The Tottenham murder
The case against the twelve IWW men occurred in an atmosphere of general hysteria against the IWW, amplified by a divisive public debate during October in advance of the conscription referendum vote. The prosecution of the twelve IWW men in Sydney occurred concurrently with the trial of Frank Franz and Roland Kennedy, both members of the IWW, who were charged with the murder of a policeman at Tottenham, in the central west of New South Wales. The murder trial opened at the Bathurst Circuit Court on 18 October 1916. On the evening of 26 September 1916 constable George Duncan had been sitting at his desk by a window of the Tottenham police station. Franz and Kennedy were outside with rifles and shot at the policeman through the window before running away. Duncan's body was found near a wire fence outside the lockup "with bullets in the body". According to evidence given at the trial, on the day before the murder constable Duncan had arrested a IWW member for abusive language, during which "there was some hoots and a disturbance" from the gathered crowd. The next day the arrested man was taken by Duncan from Tottenham to the lockup at nearby Dandaloo. On his return Duncan interviewed Roland Kennedy and told him "he intended to take proceedings against him for abusive language". The prosecutor asserted that this sequence of events alone did not constitute the motive for the crime, but that "the murder was actuated by the pernicious influence" of the IWW, "whose objects and purposes no law-abiding citizen can uphold, with the result that the constable was foully murdered". A jury found both men guilty and they were sentenced to death.Ian Turner (1967), pages 41-43.Tottenham Murder, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 19 October 1916, page 8.