6 May 2009
Court 72, Royal Courts of Justice
BEFORE: LORD JUSTICE KEANE, MR JUSTICE RODERICK EVANS
CO/10068/2008
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF
COVERDALE - v - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
CHRIS COVERDALE – IN PERSON
ROD DIXON – OF COUNSEL FOR DPP
Lord Justice Keane:
Judge: Mr Coverdale I expect you already know Court procedure. We have read your arguments. You have a chance to emphasise any points.
CC: This case is about genocide, the killing of at least 1 million people of one nationality with no accountability for the crime. Moreover the law-enforcement officers have failed to prosecute the wrongdoers. Not one police officer nor one judge have done what they are paid to do. The reality is the DPP is defending wrongdoers. Their reasons for terminating the proceedings are that there is no evidence of specific intent – this is a lie. Members of both STW & MWH spent 15 hours at Scotland Yard of which 10 hours were spent on establishing mens rea = specific intent. There is copious evidence of it in the public domain.
Judge: The CPS sought to apply the test of whether there was a realistic prospect of conviction.
CC: This is a horrific indictment of the state of justice in this country. The CPS have brushed aside the case. There is plenty of evidence for the intent to destroy the Iraqi people. I have produced a new publication my Lord [Accounting for Genocide] if I can take you to p.12 in it which includes a reference to Section 55 of the ICCA 2001, the definition is there for you to read. The focus should be on the evidence of intent which is in the public domain.
Judge: The fact that there was recognition that some would die doesn’t prove genocide does it?
CC: I refer you to the 6 points on the same page. First the perpetrator’s oral statement shows intent. The most important point though is no. 3, that there was repetition of the chosen course of action after the consequences were known. Having started off killing thousands of Iraqis in the first few hours, they then repeated those killings thousands more times. And see also p. 12, Tony Blair’s statement to the troops in Basra “so we’re killing more of them than they are of us …that’s brilliant actually”.
Judge: ‘Them’ refers to people who are killing UK soldiers.
CC: Tony Blair was determined to kill innocent civilians. It can’t be possible to consider a child a suitable object for a bomb. It is never lawful to kill a child.
Judge: Military action is not always unlawful. Children do die in war
CC: The UN Security Council is not authorised to use force. See p. 29 – the laws of war.
(Interruption by video link relating to following case on the agenda)
Judge: How much longer do you need?
CC: About 5 or 6 minutes. The UN Security Council cannot authorise force, according to Article 41, Chapter VII. The Security Council may decide what measures may be taken not including armed force. The UN Security Council didn’t call upon the British government to take part in peacekeeping operations in Iraq. The British government ignored the 2nd Security Council resolution, vetoed by
Russia, Germany etc. The government got its advice from Christopher Greenwood. But the Attorney General then claimed the war was authorised under Security Council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. There is no way that the SC could/did authorise the use of armed force. From the start the UK presence in Iraq was illegal. The Attorney General knew on March 7 2003 that this was a war of aggression. Article 51 does allow self-defence after a state is attacked and before peace-keeping from UN starts. No Iraqis ever attacked Britain.
Re. the crime of genocide, the ICCA 2001 clearly states it is for the Court to decide whether this has occurred, not the DPP. The DPP is only there to put the case forcefully.
Judge: But he does have to make a judgement as to the chance of a prosecution succeeding.
CC: Yes but on all the evidence, not just on a small slice. And (referring to the statutory instrument) the mental/intentional element needs to be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis. The DPP acted ultra vires. Please therefore grant a Judicial Review of the case on the basis that the decision in question was:
· Unlawful
· Unreasonable
· A dereliction of public duty
· Taken ultra vires
The Review should take place asap. I have been at this for 6 years. Every MP & Peer & Judge have refused to act. All I am asking is for the law to be enforced.
Judge: Mr Dixon, you’re here for the DPP. We will rise for a few moments then ask you any questions we need. Mr Justice Roderick Evans will make the answer.
Mr Justice Roderick Evans
We will not need to trouble Mr Dixon.
This is a renewed application by Coverdale/MWH. Mr C has given an articulate presentation both now and in the document ‘Accounting for Genocide’
The decision of which judicial review is sought is contained in the letter from Paul Hardy of the CPS of 25 July 2008, namely refusal to prosecute on the grounds of genocide, war-crimes, murder.
Today, Mr Coverdale has broadened the categories of those responsible to include all MPs and members of the House of Lords.
Mr Coverdale seeks injunctions to get the DPP not to act unlawfully/ultra vires and an interim injunction to halt the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. He wants a Mandatory Order to pursue the strongest possible case re. these illegal wars. Underlying Mr Coverdale’s application, these are illegal wars, crimes of aggression.
Decisions of war are such that the Court will not intervene (prerogative matter)
However, Mr Coverdale’s main point is there have been war-crimes including genocide. He has had 15 hours of meetings with the police, 10 of which were spent on mens rea, particularly in relations to intent to commit genocide. Evidence of this was sent to the CPS for their consideration of the institution of proceedings. The CPS decided not to prosecute on the basis of the code for prosecutors: There are 2 tests:
· Is there enough evidence for a ‘real prospect’ of conviction
· Is it in the public interest to bring the case?
The CPS’s decisions can be Judicial-Reviewed. However this power will be used sparingly.
Mr Hardy (of DPP) is very experienced in this area and has considered all the relevant legislation. He has recognised aggressive war as an international crime but not a domestic one. He has found insufficient evidence for murder & genocide. No member of the government or armed forces intended to kill whole/part of the Iraqi population. Mr Coverdale says there is ample evidence and provides a large document. It has not been possible to do a full reading of his document. The information provided however is of a general nature. The “killing more of them” quotation if accurate is a quotation in context of war and may therefore mean we’re killing more of those who are killing us. Re. crimes against humanity & war-crimes, there is no evidence that the armed forces carried out attacks disproportionate to any military gain. There is no evidence of murder.
Ref. to letter 9th October from Chris Newell of the CPS, he also said there is not enough
evidence to support the claims made, similar to previous claims where only broad assertions have been made. No piece of hard evidence has been offered by Mr Coverdale. The decision not to prosecute is therefore not perverse, irrational or illegal and for this reason permission to review it is refused.
L.J. Keane
Judge: I agree, the war in Iraq is controversial. Mr Coverdale is against it. Some think it justified. The Court’s remit is limited; issues of war, the legality or not thereof are political therefore non-justiciable. Mr Coverdale’s legal argument is against the war itself. See Gentle v Prime Minister & CND v UK. For these reasons and those my colleague has given, permission is refused.
The application for Judicial Review has incurred costs. Outside of this hearing it is entirely legitimate that the DPP receive costs for preparing the paperwork which will amount to £1034.
CC: This is in itself a crime ancillary to genocide
Judge: We are not arguing about a substantive matter, we are arguing about payment.
CC: You are going along with the killing and breaching your oath of office!
Points that came out of discussion afterwards:
George D. said Cherie Blair is known to have gone around in the days before the invasion drumming up support in Commons for the pro-war vote (but evidence/witness-statements needed please). He suggested publishing these proceedings on the website to attract people with legal experience into the debate. He offered to report Ann Clywd and Baroness Nicholson in his local police station. He said we need to be more accurate about the figures of the dead. He said as an Iraqi he was bent on restitution.
Pat S. said the names of all the dead should be in our documentation. Check out with the Iraq body count & Justice not Vengeance which read out the names in 2006 (?)
Margaret N. said Kofi Annan said the war was illegal
CC mentioned Brian Haw and Barbara Tucker’s idea to get an arrest warrant for TB via the local magistrates’ court, also a European arrest warrant.
Ian A. said we may be wasting our time trying to go through the Appeal Court, this needs fast-tracking to the House of Lords, eg Keane’s statement that the issue is non-justiciable. B. said in her notes Mr Justice Evans said “Courts have never interfered with the prerogative of war” – this ‘prerogative’ (royal or otherwise) definitely needs re-examining in the light of 20th & 21st century
war-law if Courts cannot ‘interfere’ with it. This is a matter for House of Lords at the very least.
Ian A also picked up on J.Evans statement that there was lack of evidence that armed forces carried out attacks disproportionate to any military gain. Ian says “If the House of Lords finds that a Judge can review the legality of war, AND the decision to go to war was illegal (ie. the contrivances of Greenwood are false) then there are not military gains and so therefore the action must have been disproportionate”.
To which can be factored in the overwhelming weight of international opinion and evidence that far from there being any ‘military gains’ whatsoever, on contrary the war in Iraq has been a disaster, has gone on far too long and cost far too much and has ruined a previously flourishing country, dictator or no dictator. See Dr Omar Al-Kubaisy’s statement to the EU Parliament about the state of his country dated 18 March 2009 (reproduced in ‘Accounting for Genocide’).
