chris coverdale appeared in front of southwark crown court judges on thursday morning to appeal against his conviction under the new serious organised crime and police act for holding an 'unauthorised demonstration in parliament square (the designated area)'. rather than offering a human rights defence, he is challenging the legality of the Iraq war and the mass murder of 100,000 innocent Iraqis, claiming that in law the killings are an act of genocide and that he and every adult citizen has a duty in law to prevent the prime minister and members of the british government from committing such heinous crimes. the outcome of this case could have massive legal implications.
supporters outside the court on thursday
chris coverdale
international criminal court act
although not a trained lawyer, chris coverdale, a management consultant from wimbledon, has spent eight years investigating corruption in business and government in britain and four years researching domestic and international war law.
since the attack on iraq he has made more than two thousand unsuccessful attempts to prevent the war and hold those responsible for the deaths of innocent iraqis to account for their crimes in court. however the government, the police, the crown prosecution service and the judiciary have closed ranks to thwart him. eventually chris felt compelled to try a novel approach.
armed with a megaphone, a large banner and a pile of leaflets outlining the case against the government, he stood outside the gates of westminster and exhorted the police to arrest tony blair. the police decided this constituted an 'unauthorised demonstration' and when he appeared at bow street in front of deputy district judge cole earlier this month, he was found guilty of that offence.
chris's grounds for appeal challenge the written judgement handed down by mr. cole in two distinct ways. first, he lists errors in law made deliberately or otherwise, both in misrepresenting the arguments that he had originally put forward, and in misinterpreting fundamental aspects of war law. secondly, the judge ordered chris to pay costs which (as the government is currently using public money to help commit its war crimes) was a crime in itself.
on thursday, chris's chance to make these points was once again stifled.
judge geoffrey rivlin qc was clearly very unimpressed when the prosecution lawyer told him that they were seeking adjournment because the crown had not yet been able to provide their skeleton argument, and because mr. george, a counsel who was familiar with other socpa cases heard at bow street, was not available. judge rivlin reminded the lawyer that on 5th july prosecution had agreed to have the skeleton argument ready in two weeks, and he said it was completely unacceptable that that had not happened. he immediately awarded against the prosecution all costs for the day, including those of mr. coverdale, and in a very stern reprimand said that they absolutely should have been ready and it was quite wrong that they weren't.
turning to mr. coverdale, judge rivlin expressed concern over the fact that chris was representing himself. the judge suggested it was important that lawyers fully explored the trickier points of the law in such an important case. chris explained that he had attempted to get legal aid and the interest of several reputable firms, but so far without luck. he added that he'd tried to present the legal issues in various courts for more than 3 years, but each time, the crown and others had found ways and means not to hear such issues.
chris objected to any adjournment on the grounds that since the time of his arrest, 12,000 more people had died, and that each day that passed added more to that total and the continuing crime of genocide.
the judge retired with his two colleagues to consider, and after a few minutes returned to again harangue the prosecution, saying that he felt he'd been forced into allowing a wholly inexcusable adjournment. he demanded that a skeleton argument be prepared by noon next wednesday in time for the trial to be heard next friday the 4th august at 10am.
judge rivlin then issued what seemed to be some sort of friendly advice to chris that the law could not allow him to make 'political speeches' as part of his case, and warning him to be very careful about how he presents his defence, reminding him that the court has a responsibility to consider only the law laid down by other courts and the statute law laid down by parliament.
chris assured him that his defence would rely heavily on both the criminal law act 1967, and the international criminal court act 2001, which was ratified by the uk and thus forms part of uk law.
a powerful and specific part of chris's defence is that under section 3 of the criminal law act 1967 he has a lawful excuse for his actions, in that the law provides that “a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime”. more importantly however is that under the judgement of the nuremburg war crimes tribunal and the nuremburg principles every citizen has a duty in law to disobey the orders of a government in order to prevent it from committing the world’s worst crime, waging a war of aggression.
"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
when hitler’s henchmen were convicted and hanged at nuremburg in 1946 for waging wars of aggression, their claim that they were only following hitler’s orders was rejected by the judges on the basis that :-
“The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal
if chris's case is successful next week, the legal implications are stunning.
if his argument is legally sound and accepted, then it opens up the possibility of massive civil disobedience on the same grounds. in theory it could be argued that even the assassination of tony blair himself might be legally defensible as it would still be a lesser crime than genocide! certainly all manner of civil disobedience would be not only excusable but also effectively mandatory, including, for instance, the withholding of tax.
In a separate case, chris appears in front of the high court next wednesday over the matter of his withholding tax since 1998. his grounds are that he would be committing the criminal offence of 'conduct ancillary to genocide' by handing over tax to the government which it will use to facilitate the crimes of genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes against the people of Iraq. chris points out that by ordering britain’s armed forces to use high explosive weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells illegally killing and injuring tens of thousands of totally innocent Iraqi men, women and children, tony blair and his co-conspirators committed genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are the worst crimes in english criminal law.
given the immense legal repercussions and ramifications, it may seem unlikely then that chris's case could succeed. on the other hand, the legal system was mainly set up by 'good men and true', and war crimes and the crime of genocide are indeed so reprehensible, that it is not really so illogical for the world of law to be turned upside down when these crimes are committed.
next friday could be a historic day in law and in war.
in the meantime, remember that when the judge awards 'costs' against the prosecution, it's taxpayers' money that is being used - perhaps if the money came out of the pockets of the crown prosecution staff responsible, we might see more justice in this country. also, with respect to the judge's concern that chris coverdale does not cross the fine line between legal argument and political speech, as one of chris's supporters put it, perhaps mr. rivlin would be good enough to explain to us how we should describe the mutilation, wounding and death of innocent women and children by cluster bombs in purely legal terms.
tax case - high court, the strand, room 110 thomas moore building 11am weds 2nd august
socpa case - southwark crown court friday 4th august
since the attack on iraq he has made more than two thousand unsuccessful attempts to prevent the war and hold those responsible for the deaths of innocent iraqis to account for their crimes in court. however the government, the police, the crown prosecution service and the judiciary have closed ranks to thwart him. eventually chris felt compelled to try a novel approach.
armed with a megaphone, a large banner and a pile of leaflets outlining the case against the government, he stood outside the gates of westminster and exhorted the police to arrest tony blair. the police decided this constituted an 'unauthorised demonstration' and when he appeared at bow street in front of deputy district judge cole earlier this month, he was found guilty of that offence.
chris's grounds for appeal challenge the written judgement handed down by mr. cole in two distinct ways. first, he lists errors in law made deliberately or otherwise, both in misrepresenting the arguments that he had originally put forward, and in misinterpreting fundamental aspects of war law. secondly, the judge ordered chris to pay costs which (as the government is currently using public money to help commit its war crimes) was a crime in itself.
on thursday, chris's chance to make these points was once again stifled.
judge geoffrey rivlin qc was clearly very unimpressed when the prosecution lawyer told him that they were seeking adjournment because the crown had not yet been able to provide their skeleton argument, and because mr. george, a counsel who was familiar with other socpa cases heard at bow street, was not available. judge rivlin reminded the lawyer that on 5th july prosecution had agreed to have the skeleton argument ready in two weeks, and he said it was completely unacceptable that that had not happened. he immediately awarded against the prosecution all costs for the day, including those of mr. coverdale, and in a very stern reprimand said that they absolutely should have been ready and it was quite wrong that they weren't.
turning to mr. coverdale, judge rivlin expressed concern over the fact that chris was representing himself. the judge suggested it was important that lawyers fully explored the trickier points of the law in such an important case. chris explained that he had attempted to get legal aid and the interest of several reputable firms, but so far without luck. he added that he'd tried to present the legal issues in various courts for more than 3 years, but each time, the crown and others had found ways and means not to hear such issues.
chris objected to any adjournment on the grounds that since the time of his arrest, 12,000 more people had died, and that each day that passed added more to that total and the continuing crime of genocide.
the judge retired with his two colleagues to consider, and after a few minutes returned to again harangue the prosecution, saying that he felt he'd been forced into allowing a wholly inexcusable adjournment. he demanded that a skeleton argument be prepared by noon next wednesday in time for the trial to be heard next friday the 4th august at 10am.
judge rivlin then issued what seemed to be some sort of friendly advice to chris that the law could not allow him to make 'political speeches' as part of his case, and warning him to be very careful about how he presents his defence, reminding him that the court has a responsibility to consider only the law laid down by other courts and the statute law laid down by parliament.
chris assured him that his defence would rely heavily on both the criminal law act 1967, and the international criminal court act 2001, which was ratified by the uk and thus forms part of uk law.
a powerful and specific part of chris's defence is that under section 3 of the criminal law act 1967 he has a lawful excuse for his actions, in that the law provides that “a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime”. more importantly however is that under the judgement of the nuremburg war crimes tribunal and the nuremburg principles every citizen has a duty in law to disobey the orders of a government in order to prevent it from committing the world’s worst crime, waging a war of aggression.
"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
when hitler’s henchmen were convicted and hanged at nuremburg in 1946 for waging wars of aggression, their claim that they were only following hitler’s orders was rejected by the judges on the basis that :-
“The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal
if chris's case is successful next week, the legal implications are stunning.
if his argument is legally sound and accepted, then it opens up the possibility of massive civil disobedience on the same grounds. in theory it could be argued that even the assassination of tony blair himself might be legally defensible as it would still be a lesser crime than genocide! certainly all manner of civil disobedience would be not only excusable but also effectively mandatory, including, for instance, the withholding of tax.
In a separate case, chris appears in front of the high court next wednesday over the matter of his withholding tax since 1998. his grounds are that he would be committing the criminal offence of 'conduct ancillary to genocide' by handing over tax to the government which it will use to facilitate the crimes of genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes against the people of Iraq. chris points out that by ordering britain’s armed forces to use high explosive weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells illegally killing and injuring tens of thousands of totally innocent Iraqi men, women and children, tony blair and his co-conspirators committed genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are the worst crimes in english criminal law.
given the immense legal repercussions and ramifications, it may seem unlikely then that chris's case could succeed. on the other hand, the legal system was mainly set up by 'good men and true', and war crimes and the crime of genocide are indeed so reprehensible, that it is not really so illogical for the world of law to be turned upside down when these crimes are committed.
next friday could be a historic day in law and in war.
in the meantime, remember that when the judge awards 'costs' against the prosecution, it's taxpayers' money that is being used - perhaps if the money came out of the pockets of the crown prosecution staff responsible, we might see more justice in this country. also, with respect to the judge's concern that chris coverdale does not cross the fine line between legal argument and political speech, as one of chris's supporters put it, perhaps mr. rivlin would be good enough to explain to us how we should describe the mutilation, wounding and death of innocent women and children by cluster bombs in purely legal terms.
tax case - high court, the strand, room 110 thomas moore building 11am weds 2nd august
socpa case - southwark crown court friday 4th august
e-mail:
Comments
Display the following 4 comments