WW1 Royal Australian Navy medals Stoker O’Donnell who served on H.M.A.S. Pioneer in German East Africa. Post war he was a mutineer aboard H.M.A.S. Australia in 1919. 

1914 – 15 Star impressed named O.N.2641 P, O’DONNELL. STOKER.; British War and Victory Medals (1914 – 18) impressed named 2641 P, O’DONNELL. STOKER. R.A.N. Court mounted for display with copies of service records, newspaper articles, and Journal of Australian Naval Institute 1996.

Philip O’Donnell was born on 22/3/1892 in Buncrana, Ireland. A bricklayer by trade he emigrated to Australia in 1912 and enlisted into the Royal Australian Navy on 13/2/1913 for a 7-year stint with his trade as a bootmaker. He deserted (‘on the run’) on 9/3/1914 – (12/9/1914?). It is unsure if he was apprehended or handed himself in, as he was stationed at Cerberus from 12/9/1914 – 7/10/1914. Posted to H.M.A.S. Pioneer (protected cruiser) from 8/10/1914 – 7/11/1916. This was followed by H.M.A.S. Franklin (tender) 8/11/1916 – 13/2/1917, H.M.A.S. Fantome (sloop) 13/5/1917 – 21/8/1917 which was conducting patrols in the seas east of Singapore, based at Sandakan in Borneo. H.M.A.S. Psych (protected cruiser) 22/8/1917 – 1/3/1918 patrolling Australian waters. London Depot 6/4/1918 – 23/6/1918. H.M.A.S. Melbourne (light cruiser) 24/6/1918 – 27/2/1919. Post war he served on the H.M.A.S. Australia 21/3/1919 – 12/6/1919 and H.M.A.S. Melbourne, H.M.A.S. Sydney and H.M.A.S. Franklin discharging to shore on 22/4/1920. H.M.A.S. Australia Mutiny 1919.

The Australia arrived in Fremantle on 28/5/1919, the first time the ship had seen home waters in four and a half years. Representatives of the ship's company approached Captain Cumberledge to ask for a one-day delay on departure; this would allow the sailors to have a full weekend of leave, give Perth-born personnel the chance to visit their families, and give personnel another chance to invite people aboard. This request was refused by the Captain. The next morning, at around 10:30, between 80 and 100 sailors gathered in front of 'P' turret, some in working uniform, others who had just returned from shore leave still in libertyman rig. The Captain sent the executive officer to find out why the men had assembled, and on learning that they were repeating the previous day's request for a delay in departure, went down to address them. In a strict, legalistic tone, he informed the sailors that delaying Australia's departure was impossible and ordered them to disperse. The group obeyed this order, although some were vocal in their displeasure. Shortly after, Australia was ready to depart, but when the order to release the mooring lines and get underway was given, the captain was informed that the stokers had abandoned the boiler rooms. After the assembly on deck, some sailors had masked themselves with black handkerchiefs, and encouraged or intimidated the stokers on duty into leaving their posts, leaving the navy's flagship stranded at the buoy, in full view of dignitaries and crowds lining the nearby wharf. The senior non-commissioned officers, along with sailors drafted from other departments, were sent to the boiler room to get Australia moving, and departure from Fremantle was only delayed by an hour. Australian naval historians David Stevens and Tom Frame disagree on what happened next. Stevens states that Cumberledge assembled the ship's company in the early afternoon, read the Articles of War, lectured them on the seriousness of refusing duty, then ordered the stokers to go to their stations, which they did meekly. Frame claims the stokers returned to duty freely once the battlecruiser was underway, before Cumberledge cleared the lower deck and spoke to the sailors. After addressing the sailors, Cumberledge gathered the ship's senior officers for an inquiry. Five men, including one of the Victoria Cross nominees from the Zeebrugge raid, were charged with inciting a mutiny and arrested pending a court-martial, which was held aboard H.M.A.S. Encounter on 20 June, after Australia arrived in Sydney.

The ruling was that the five men had "joined a mutiny, not accompanied by violence", and they were sentenced to imprisonment in Goulburn Gaol: two for a year, one for eighteen months, and two for two years with hard labour. A number of other sailors were charged with participating in a mutiny, but again, Stevens and Frame disagree on details: the former claims 7 men were successfully charged, while the latter says 32 sailors were subsequently acquitted of mutiny, but then successfully charged with refusing duty. Both authors agree that these men were tried by the captain while Australia was still at sea and punished with 90 days each in cells. Following the court-martial of the five ringleaders, there was debate among the public, in the media, and within government over the sentences; while most agreed that a mutiny had occurred, there were differences in opinion on the leniency or severity of the punishments imposed. Public sympathy was with the sailors, and several politicians pressured the government and the Admiralty to pardon the men. The Admiralty thought the sentences were fair, but on 10 September announced that they would be halved on consideration of the sailors' youth. Despite this, controversy continued until 21 November: after the Australian government appealed directly to the Admiralty, it was agreed that the sailors would be released on 20 December. However, the government had angered the Naval Board in appealing to the Admiralty without consulting the Board first. The First Naval Member, Rear Admiral Percy Grant and Commander of the Fleet, Commodore John Dumaresq, submitted their resignations in protest, as they felt the show of clemency would lead to a breakdown in discipline, and that if the government continued to communicate with the Admiralty without consulting the Board, it would undermine the Board's authority. The two officers were later convinced to withdraw their resignations after receiving assurances that Board would be consulted before all future government communications to Britain regarding the RAN, and that notices would be posted in all ships explaining that the sentences were correct, but the onset of peace had led to clemency in this particular case. Newspapers of the day mention the 5 main offenders by nam, but it is strongly believed that O’Donnell was one of the 7 (or 32) other sailors who were charged with the incident. His service records show that he was ‘Sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with H.L (Hard Labour) and to be dismissed from the service’. A further entry records “Sentence reduced to 1-year imprisonment without dismissal’. This sentencing matches the narrative of the sentences of the main offenders and as a Stoker on the ship at the time of the incident he would have been present.