CALLED TO ACCOUNT

CALLED TO ACCOUNT

The indictment of
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
for the crime of aggression against Iraq –
a hearing

EDITED BY RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR

DEVISED BY NICOLAS KENT

OBERON BOOKS
LONDON

Contents

Characters

The Prosecution’s Opening Statement

The Defence’s Opening Statement

Act One

Act Two

The Prosecution’s Closing Statement

The Defence’s Closing Statement

Appendix

Richard Norton-Taylor

All the interviews (except two) for this play took place in offices in London between 5 January and 15 February 2007. Scott Ritter’s evidence was taken on two separate occasions on a conference call to the United States, and Juan Gabriel Valdes’ evidence on a conference call to Santiago, Chile.

Altogether about 28 hours of evidence was taken from 14 witnesses – a further eight witnesses were approached but declined to take part.

The Tricycle Theatre is enormously indebted to all the witnesses who volunteered to commit to this process and answered questions rigorously; and to the dedicated legal team of Philippe Sands QC, Julian Knowles, Alison Macdonald and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh who worked tirelessly and pro-bono on this project from November 2006 to March 2007.

Nicolas Kent and Richard Norton-Taylor
April 2007

Characters

THE LAWYERS

Philippe Sands QC, Prosecution

Alison Macdonald, Prosecution

Julian Knowles, Defence

Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, Defence

THE WITNESSES

Dr Shirwan Al-Mufti

Scott Ritter

Michael Smith

Sir Murray Stuart Smith

Clare Short, MP

Michael Mates, MP

Edward Mortimer

Juan Gabriel Valdes

Bob Marshall Andrews QC, MP

Richard Perle

Sir Michael Quinlan

Called to Account was first performed at the Tricycle Theatre, London on 19 April 2007, with the following cast:

PHILIPPE SANDS QC, Thomas Wheatley

ALISON MACDONALD, Morven Macbeth

JULIAN KNOWLES, David Michaels

BLINNE NÍ GHRÁLAIGH, Charlotte Lucas

DR SHIRWAN AL-MUFTI, Raad Rawi

SCOTT RITTER, David Beames

MICHAEL SMITH, Ken Drury

SIR MURRAY STUART SMITH, William Hoyland

CLARE SHORT, MP, Diane Fletcher

MICHAEL MATES, MP, Roland Oliver

EDWARD MORTIMER, Jeremy Clyde

JUAN GABRIEL VALDES, James Woolley

BOB MARSHALL ANDREWS QC, MP, Terrence Hardiman

RICHARD PERLE, Shane Rimmer

SIR MICHAEL QUINLAN, William Hoyland

 

Director, Nicolas Kent

Designer, Polly Sullivan

Lighting Designer, James Farncombe

Assistant Director, Phil Honour

Sound, Paul Kizintas

The Prosecution’s Opening Statement

SANDS: In accordance with Article 15 of the [International Criminal Court] statute, the prosecutor seeks the authorisation of the Court to investigate the facts, to ascertain whether they provide a basis for indicting Anthony Charles Lynton Blair for the crime of aggression. As the Court assesses the evidence, we invite you to focus on four facts: One, what was Mr Blair’s true purpose in using force against Iraq: was it Regime change or the elimination of WMD? Two, when did Mr Blair commit himself to use force: was it in March 2003, or was it earlier, in March 2002? Three, did Mr Blair manipulate the presentation of the evidence on WMD, and did he willfully disregard evidence and advice that would have been unhelpful to his case, including the legal case? Four, what was Mr Blair’s true state of knowledge as to the legality of the use of force?

The prosecutor recognises that the crime of aggression is the most serious of crimes. This application is not made lightly. We invite the Court to consider the evidence.

The Defence’s Opening Statement

KNOWLES:

1.	This case is not about politics. It is about law. There could not be a more serious allegation than that made by the prosecution in this case. But legal condemnation should not result from political opposition.
2.	And you should certainly demand the most cogent evidence before deciding the prosecution’s case is made.
3.	In defending this case we do not rely alone on the Security Council’s failure to declare the Iraq war to be unlawful, even though that is a powerful factor, if not a complete defence, to the charge. Nor do we rely on the refusal of many of the prosecution witnesses to accuse others in the Government of a crime, even though, if the prosecution’s charge were well-founded, they should be here too. We say the prosecution’s evidence lacks cogency and comes from peripheral figures who cannot speak with authority about relevant matters. Heart-felt opinions are no substitute for hard evidence.
4.	The prosecution ask you to consider a number of issues. Some of these have already been examined in other inquires. As you will hear, those involved in those inquiries found no evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister manipulated intelligence or disregarded advice. None of the opinions offered by the prosecution’s witnesses, however passionate, can displace that stark conclusion.
5.	Finally, we would remind you that the crime of aggression requires proof that the Prime Minister intended to act in breach of international law. When you have heard the evidence you will be certain that what the Prime Minister did, he did with the legal authority of the Government’s legal adviser, whose good faith the prosecution and its witnesses accept.