(MUEZZIN SINGS CALL TO PRAYER)
(WOMAN WAILS)
(HELICOPTER WHIRRING)
(COUGHING)
- You're gonna be all right, mate. - They're in there! Others.
(SHOUTING)
They're in there!
Clear! Clear!
(BREAKING GLASS)
Clear!
- This one's still alive. Get a medic! - (MAN SHOUTS)
(MAN SHOUTS)
(VEHICLE SOUNDS HORN)
In this country, although we pride ourselves on our freedom of speech,
it is not an enshrined right.
Now, Shelby Brookes was correctly convicted
for stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds,
contrary to the Public Order Act 1986, Section 29 (b),
as inserted by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
The evidence presented at this trial
clearly demonstrates that he intended to stir up such hatred.
And in one particularly offensive passage, and I quote,
"Islam is a backward religion.
"It's highly dangerous and intolerant.
"Everyone knows it, but we're becoming a state
"where ordinary British people are scared to take action..."
- (MURMURING) - "...like proper citizens." Unquote.
Now, these words may seem harmless,
but spoken at the end of a rally in Bradford,
they were deliberately provocative
- and led to rioting. - (WHISPERING)
(CHATTER)
I'm Sir Ian Rochester, Permanent Secretary of the DCA.
Now, I ask you to give proper weight to the statutory protections,
as inserted by 29 (j) of the Act.
This guarantees that none of the provisions
to which Sir Alan has directed Your Lordships
can ever be interpreted in such a way as to prohibit or restrict discussion,
criticism, ridicule or even abuse of particular religions
or the beliefs of their adherents.
Attacking an individual, that is a different matter.
Shelby Brookes didn't do that.
He has a protected right, like every other person,
to challenge or condemn any belief system or religion.
Despite legislation put in place to protect his right to criticise ideas,
the police chose to be provocative in arresting him.
So, unless and until we proscribe Mr Brookes's party,
we must defend to our dying breath his right to speak freely, within the law,
regardless of who that offends.
Thank you, Mrs Mills.
Would you defend your client's right to deny the Holocaust?
He made such a statement on one occasion.
As offensive as that idea is, the law must defend his right to express it.
- The alternative is dictatorship. - Hm.
We shall adjourn to consider ourjudgment.
All rise.
Good morning?
Well, I should feel more sanguine about it if Deed wasn't on the bench.
- Did you see the mob outside? - And why the police allow it...
Oh, yes, the Cabinet's braced for trouble if this... if this appeal succeeds.
Deed won't let that influence him.
I thought he'd been sent off to The Hague.
There's no work for him there. He's at liberty to sit back here.
Mrs Mills, your feelings?
I think it's shameful the Government ever brought this case.
What else could I expect
from that radical bunch of loonies that she's joined forces with?
His opinions are odious,
but in a democratic society, is it really necessary that we zip his mouth?
Well, Article 10 of the European Convention forbids us to do so.
Not entirely. It restricts his rights sometimes,
for public safety and for the protection of the rights of others.
Brookes is a racist.
He hates blacks and Muslims and gays and Jews,
and people with six toes, for all I know.
And, despite the location of his speech,
Brookes was careful to attack only the religion.
Can we permit a religious creed to be immune from criticism
simply because its adherents
- claim that that criticism is insulting? - (CLOCK CHIMING)
We have to try to get behind the words, Joe, to intent.
Wasn't Islam being held up in hatred?
There is European jurisprudence, Jersild versus Denmark 1955.
Ajournalist was convicted of aiding and abetting racial hatred.
He had interviewed three neo-Nazis.
On overturning the conviction,
the court ruled that it would seriously hamper press freedom
were he prevented from disseminating such views.
JOHN: This still ignores Article 17.
We can't interpret any right in the Convention in any way
that allows Brookes to destroy any of its other rights and freedoms.
Brookes was following the law
by not attacking the security of the Muslims under the Convention,
only their ideas.
Ideas lead to physical reality, Joe, violence.
I can't believe that Brookes wasn't aware of that.
There's very little we can do about it under the law as it now stands.
In a full democracy, ideas alone don't undermine anyone's peace, John.
- Do we live in a full democracy? - That's why we need these protections.
How would you feel if your core religious beliefs were held up for ridicule
by somebody claiming to represent the white majority?
I'd want the blasphemer stoned.
We'll all be stoned if we overturn the lower court and release him.
Now, there's a dilemma.
Should we uphold a wrong judgment for fear of reprisals?
I'm still not convinced it was wrong.
Then we must each take our own counsel and meet at a later date. 14 days?
(SIREN WAILING)
11 people shot in Basra
is hardly huge in relation to the number of people killed there, Ian.
These were civilians killed by a British soldier. Four of them were children.
- Well, three were terrorists, surely? - That was the Army's original position.
The Iraqi government now claims none were.
- Huh! Well, how reliable is that? - They want the case heard in Iraq.
Well, the PM might go along with it as part of our exit strategy.
Pity poor Private Clark.
Have we got an exit strategy?
- The Army wants a court martial. - Well, they won't get it.
Not even with the Secretary of State for Defence arguing for it in Cabinet.
Taxi!
Er... Garrick Club, please.
(VEHICLE SOUNDS HORN)
Sir Joseph.
(ALARM SOUNDS)
- Did you recognise the woman, Joe? - Well, do you think it's serious?
The Home Office can't treat it as anything other than serious.
But I barely saw the woman.
You'll all have to have round-the-clock protection.
(LAUGHS) As long as she's got good legs!
Ooh, yeah!
(BIRDSONG OUTSIDE)
What are Sir John's routines?
I keep his diary quite secure. You'll have to ask him.
This is not helping your boss.
I'm beginning to think this is a move by the Lord Chancellor to restrict me.
We can't take any risks. We're taking it very seriously, sir.
It was Sir Joe Channing that was threatened.
- Yeah, I've been assigned to your staff. - I don't think Mrs Cooper needs any help.
I'm sure you wouldn't like it if Mrs Cooper opened a letter addressed to you,
and it exploded.
I wouldn't like it any better if it happened to you.
All the while you're here, you must report to Mrs Cooper.
- Sir, I really think... - Yes, yes, all right.
I'm sure you're very good at what you do, but so is Mrs Cooper.
- Is he always so difficult? - Huh!
- I will need to know his movements. - I wish I knew them myself.
- He has lots of girlfriends. - I wouldn't know about that.
Is he sleeping with the barrister, Mrs Mills?
- Is that anyone's business but his? - He could be at risk.
Look, we have to ensure his safety without his knowing.
He's in court on another appeal this afternoon.
Is it likely to attract a lot of the general public?
The status of electronic bank drafts in the law of theft?
Yeah, they'll be queuing down The Strand(!)
Afterwards, he's meeting Mrs Mills. They're fencing at the gym.
I don't care how stable a trial in Baghdad makes those rag-heads look...!
Sounds like the Secretary of State for Defence is adamant, Percy.
Ready to punch someone, I'd say.
...Our boys deserve better!
The proper course is for the Army to court-martial Private Clark.
The Iraqis won't budge.
- We wrest the country back from a madman. - (CLOCK CHIMING)
- Now they imagine they're a democracy. - More people voted in Iraq than here.
Well, you know the PM's view, Martin.
It'll help stabilise Iraq if the courts are at least seen to be functioning.
But the troops on the ground would feel they have no protection until we exit.
The longer we delay the functioning of their administration,
- the longer that exit will take, General. - (CLOCK TICKING)
(SNORTS) A trial in Iraq would be seen as a sellout.
Even more of our lads would desert.
No-one's selling them out, Andy.
I'll fight this one in public if necessary.
See what the electorate thinks.
(SWORDS TAP AND SCRAPE NEXT DOOR)
(SIGHS)
The police tramped through my apartment today.
Checking on security in case you visit me.
That was a bit presumptuous.
I think it provided them with an excuse.
Because of my relationship with Radical Lawyers for Justice.
The police have become an arm of government. Nobody seems to care.
Well, you'd better start caring. You might need to rely on them for your security.
I can't take that seriously.
They did ask about us.
What did you tell 'em?
- That I can never be with you. - Why?
What's that all about? I thought life was good.
Yeah. It is for you, John.
It's like you can't be touched on any level.
Is this why you've hooked up with Radical Lawyers?
No, that was a good offer.
In legal circles, it's self-immolation. You could have been a judge.
Yeah, and then I'd be unassailable too, and I don't want that.
Jo, come on. Why are you doing this? Don't do this.
Because I don't like the way I'm living my life, John.
- I want to change it. - Is this helping?
Excuse me, but who are you to question that?
If you get close to this lot, you'll never be a judge.
What difference could I make on the bench, anyway?
Mm-hm? And if you're stopped from being a barrister?
Has anyone threatened that?
This new set is totally lopsided,
totally political. They ignore all principles of objectivity.
No, they believe in what they're doing,
and that is more than can be said for most lawyers.
Don't you use them as a stick to beat me with.
We've got too much history for that.
And don't you manipulate me, John.
I can't talk to you any more. I can't reach you.
You just... you just take a position and you don't shift.
A bomb is probably all that'll move you.
(DOOR CLOSES)
(BIRDSONG OUTSIDE)
(BELL RINGS)
It is an outrage.
The British are denying us justice
by refusing to allow us to try Private Clark in Iraq.
Instead, they are insisting on The Hague.
Yeah, I've been following the public row
between the British PM and the Army Minister.
This soldier must be tried on Iraqi soil.
That might be risky, Mr Ambassador. It suggests you want a lynch party.
We want only justice.
But The Hague is the perfect venue. Politically sophisticated.
Yes, but can the International Criminal Court deliverjustice for Iraq?
I will prosecute personally. Let's talk to Claude Previn.
It is still a trial in English for the English.
Given France's consistent opposition to the war, you need have no concerns.
Iraq must make a formal request under the Statute of Rome, Article 13.
We would like this case, monsieur. N'est-ce pas, Marie?
We would make sure the soldier was found guilty.
The consequences of their illegal war.
- Claude? - If only we could fight that battle.
I will talk... to our Justice Minister.
As far as the Army's concerned,
the International Criminal Court is little better than Iraq.
Hardly, General.
The soldiers on the ground won't notice any difference.
And how many more desertions can we sustain?
3,000 to date.
It's out of our hands now. We are official signatories to the ICC, after all.
Some means must be found to block this.
If we don't, soldiers who don't go AWOL will avoid taking action
for fear of being made a political football.
This is part of our exit strategy.
- (CLOCK TICKING) - What exit strategy?
Well, I, er... I suppose we must get out sooner rather than later.
Then we must pre-empt a trial at The Hague and try him by court martial.
Well, that would cause an international incident.
There might be a simpler solution.
Private Clark's mental state could mean that he's unfit for trial.
Now, that's a possibility, General.
Not much honour there. Anyway, our trick cyclists say he's sound.
(CLOCK TICKING)
Right. I'll report back.
Gentlemen.
(DOOR OPENS AND CLOSES)
How much of a sacrificial lamb is this soldier, Alan?
Well, I suppose we could withdraw HMG's consent to the trial,
although the PM's inclined to take it on the chin.
It's Private Clark in the dock, not HMG.
Well, it puts clear blue water between us and the US.
It shows that the British don't shy away from international justice.
If Deed was on the panel, swimming our way, so much the better.
How to get Deed to swim other than against the tide, Alan?
(CLOCK TICKING)
Your name's been put forward for the trial panel.
The Government feels it should be represented.
I don't represent the Government, Ian.
His Honour Judge Previn is resisting your inclusion.
He hasn't got much trial experience.
Do any of them? They'll make up the deficiency by time-wasting.
Oh, no, that means a year or more, Ian.
I'd really rather one of the otherjudges did it.
I think there's a move afoot to sacrifice Private Clark to our exit strategy.
Which is what, exactly?
I'm not privy to it, John,
but I think it involves an English judge
helping to deliverjustice by finding Private Clark guilty.
And if he's not guilty?
It's a small price to pay, it's felt,
for saving the lives of British soldiers in Iraq.
(SIGHS)
(SIGHS) John, please go before I say something I might regret.
Just go.
Go!
I can't do the case in The Hague. Deed's on the trial panel.
- That's madness, Jo. - We had a relationship, Simon.
Well, then, play him to our advantage.
Think about it, Jo. It's like a gift to Dave Clark's defence.
(BIRDSONG)
- Goedendag. - Goedendag.
I'm Dr Pavely. I have a reservation.
Ah, yes, Dr Pavely.
If you could fill out the registration.
Shall I unpack, Judge?
- This trial's reckoned to last a year. - Are we staying?
Well, from what I've read so far, we could do it in three weeks.
I'll unpack, then.
Marie Madsen, chief prosecutor of the ICC.
Excuse me! Mr Justice Deed is busy!
- She's here now, Coop. - So much for security!
I don't think there's much danger in Ms Madsen.
You look older than your reputation led me to expect.
Touché.
- Do you fence? - Games are a waste of time.
It's mental discipline, like yoga.
- You do yoga? - No, I'm too lazy.
Have you read the papers in the Private Clark case?
There is a lot to read.
Well, we have a drink later and talk, yes?
Is it quite proper? The chief prosecutor and one of the trial judges?
Ourjoint concern is the achievement of justice.
I thought that you presented your evidence, the defence theirs,
and the judges decide.
Article 54 (1 ) says my task is to investigate
both incriminating and exonerating circumstances.
You should not hear this case, Sir John.
Until later.
She's a forceful lady.
Bit of a madam, if you ask me.
She has a reputation for getting drunk with the trial judges.
Oh, I'm a police officer.
Oh.
So, is, er...
is your policewoman a lesbian?
(SNORTS)
You have a reputation for getting too close to the trial judges.
You have a reputation for interfering.
Isn't that how European courts work?
The evidence points to Private Clark's guilt.
His defence team would say it points to lack of legal guilt.
- You're familiar with his defence team? - My statement didn't imply that.
Do you have sex with Mrs Mills?
You get right to it, don't you?
Ah, you don't deny it.
Am I being cross-examined?
- Oh, how can she defend this man? - I'm not running the defence.
- It's for us to interrogate him. - With his defence team.
When I heard you might be on this panel, I was sure I wouldn't like you.
Hm. Now you've changed your mind, have you?
You are frank, forthright.
I can't stand men who don't know what they want, nor how to get it when they do.
Would you like to make love?
I think that would be very nice.
Oh, this is good.
But at this point I must reveal I'm from the News Of The World and leave.
This is a joke?
Yeah, it's... it's more a cultural difference.
- I thought you knew what you wanted. - Yes, I'll regret it all my life.
- (KNOCK AT DOOR) - Yes...
(CLICKS TONGUE) ...I think you will.
Sir John?
Nick of time.
- (THUNDER ROLLING) - (ALARM SOUNDING)
(ALARM DROWNS OUT SPEECH)
Are they going to find me guilty, Mrs Mills?
- Are they? - We think our case is good.
Dave, I want you to bring your mother into court.
No. She's not well. She can't.
They'll hear how you helped look after her when you were growing up.
They'll see her in her wheelchair.
I don't want her to hear about those children.
No, it... it'll kill her.
Please don't make her come here.
(PANTING)
I wish I could do that.
Excuse me?
Do you know the fable of the hare and the tortoise?
I'm sure it ends badly.
- Well... - She's a guest at our hotel.
They must be giving her different food.
(TRAM BELL RINGS)
- (BOAT SOUNDS HORN) - (BICYCLE BELL RINGS)
Hi.
I wanted this to be informal.
Not country to country.
You require me to step down. Marie Madsen told me.
The Iraqis do not wish an English judge to be on the panel.
No, of course not.
The is a most prominent case, monsieur. We must accommodate them.
Well, because of its prominence, we shouldn't.
How could the British continue in Iraq if we gave in to their demands?
The British shouldn't be in Iraq. Nor the Americans.
The UK has a commitment, to help stabilise things.
Can they ever be stable under an occupying power?
- Will it ever be stable without? - With anyone else's help, yes.
- Is France helping? - Naturellement.
Working behind the scenes.
Naturellement.
You'll find my trial experience helpful in moving things along.
These cases take time, monsieur.
Too much time is being wasted. We could do this in three weeks.
I am the trial president, monsieur.
- Mrs Mills, Judge. - (PHONE RINGING)
- Coop... - I know, Judge, some tea.
No, I haven't come for tea.
You're on the panel hearing Private Clark.
Somebody doesn't want me to be.
Good. Neither do I. I want you to step down.
Britain has to be represented.
Since when have you become the Government's hack?
That's not the issue.
Nor will I allow your new chums to make it so.
It's our Government who should be on trial.
Taking that line will damage your career.
My career's just fine, thank you. I'd sooner not be part of the Establishment.
- Like it or not, Jo, you are. - I'm increasingly ashamed to be British.
Joining Jumping Jack Flash's set's not going to help, is it?
I want you to think about what I've asked.
Yeah, yeah. What defence are you running?
Going after the Government will not help your client.
Claude says you refuse to step down.
- I'm sorry, Sir John. - It's all right, she's harmless.
Pah! Islamic terrorists are harmless compared to me!
It's fine. Marie Madsen, Jo Mills. Prosecution, meet the defence.
Ah, Mrs Mills. I know about you.
You will step down from this case, Sir John. It's essential.
- Persuade him, Mrs Mills. - I don't have that sort of influence.
Then leave. I'll talk to him.
In England, the prosecution and the defence see the trial judge together.
This is The Hague, Mrs Mills.
Mm. Where it seems you need little law to get by.
What did she mean?
No matter how differently you do things here, I won't see you without the defence.
- Because of your relationship? - I don't answer to you, Marie.
You must withdraw when you have a relationship with an advocate.
You have a relationship with Previn.
You're in and out of his room like a fiddler's elbow.
This is not an affair.
What, you simply get drunk in his room, do you?
- Where did you hear that? - Maybe you should step down.
Never! I'm going to send this British soldier to prison.
(PANTING)
This is getting to be a habit, the hare passing the tortoise.
- The tortoise wins in the end. - Only in the fable.
Will you be here after your AIDS conference?
No, I have to go to Switzerland.
Where you run up and down mountains?
(BOTH CHUCKLE)
How about a more leisurely bike ride around the city?
- I have to do some work. - Oh, yeah.
That'll be our epitaph, won't it?
Putting life on hold while we wait for work to stop.
Yes. It's a modern disease.
How about that bike ride, then?
No, I really do have to work.
- How about dinner, then? - You really are very persistent, Mr Deed.
Well...
- I do try. - (CHUCKLES)
(CAMERA CLICKS)
COURT OFFICIAL: La cour se lève.
Cour Pénale Internationale. L'audience est ouverte à dix heures.
Good day to everyone.
I would like to start
by asking the defendant about conditions in detention.
He has any complaints? He is receiving the correct food?
He is, Your Honour. No complaints.
Can we read out the charge to the accused?
May it please Your Honour, before this is read,
I must challenge the propriety of Sir John Deed to sit on this panel.
On what grounds?
He has a relationship with the defence lead.
You are presenting evidence?
I would like to examine His Honour Sir John and Mrs Mills on this point.
Well, I would suggest my chambers, but there is always a need for transparency.
Not to proceed will raise the spectre of bias in this important case.
Sir John and Madame Mills, would you submit to examination?
This is wholly prejudicial.
This trial cannot be subject to bias.
Madame, do you have any relationship with any judge on this panel?
I know Mr Justice Deed. I fenced with him only last week.
Your Honour, this is to favour her client.
- Does Sir John wish to comment? - (SIGHS) Not in open court, no.
Under our constitution, we demand transparency.
Is there a relationship likely to prejudice this trial?
No, there is not.
Then we should be mindful of Article 67,
which guarantees the defendant the right to choose his own counsel.
May we continue reading out the charge?
Would your honour hear a further argument?
Regrettably, no.
I have ruled.
David Patrick Clark,
you are charged with the war crime of wilful killing,
contrary to the Rome Statute, Article 8, 2 (b),
that on November 11th last at around 5pm,
in the context of and associated with an international armed conflict,
you did cause the death by shooting of Asheer Al-Abul, aged four years,
a person you knew to be protected
under the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 12th August 1949.
You are further charged with the war crimes of murder,
contrary to Article 8, 2 (c),
in that you did murder civilians taking no part in the hostilities.
Namely, Maliki Al-Jamil, aged seven,
Eisa Ali Nasser, nine years old,
Ziyal Ataie,
Amira Hakim,
Hussein Husseini,
Sadia Al-Rahman,
Mohammed Rufi,
Qasim Al-Assam,
Murtaza Nazah.
How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
Not guilty, sir.
Sit down, monsieur.
Madame Mills.
In support of Private Clark's defence, we have sought
hospital records from the Iraqi authority.
These relate to the man that Private Clark rescued and who died in his arms.
These records aren't forthcoming.
You know they exist?
We believe so, based on evidence from the defendant.
You did request them?
We did. Not having them is prejudicial to the defence.
But you knew the trial date.
The prosecution could use its considerable powers under Article 54
to investigate with the Iraq authority just why these papers aren't forthcoming.
The man is a fiction.
There are no papers.
I would like you to investigate further and report back.
This is a matter for the defence.
I'm not here to scout for data to exonerate the accused.
Your statutory obligation is to establish the truth.
I want those hospital papers.
I'm sure Mrs Mills will provide the details for you.
- I'm obliged, My Lord. - Wrong form, Mrs Mills.
Your Honour.
Can we proceed?
I'd first like to enquire about the defendant's mental state.
Er... no. The prisoner was declared fit for trial.
Yes, I read the Army psychiatrists' reports.
Are there any independent reports?
How many psychies must a man have to see before they can call him quite sane?
British Army psychiatrists.
- No less qualified. - The prosecution has a point.
Yes, they work for the Army.
Work cultures affect the minds of us all, even psychiatrists.
The whole of the British Army is mad, being in Iraq.
Mrs Mills, was the defendant examined by any other psychiatrists?
He was independently examined four times.
The reports are on your screens at tab ten.
- Will you be calling these psychiatrists? - JO: Er... I will not.
In which case, I'd like to examine the Army psychiatrists.
For what purpose?
I want to be satisfied as to the mental state of the defendant.
It isn't disputed by anyone.
I find myself agreeing with the defence. On this point.
(WHISPERS)
- (WHISPERS) We have no other option. - No, obviously.
We will withdraw to discuss.
COURT OFFICIAL: La cour se lève.
(SIGHS) He's always so infuriating?
You ain't seen nothing.
(CHATTER OUTSIDE)
Relax, Dave.
- Would you wait outside? - He's got to be guarded, miss.
Yes. But outside.
No, miss. He needs guarding at all times.
Just leave. We need to speak to Private Clark alone.
- It's orders. - No, get out!
Simon, tell the judges the guards are preventing our client
from mounting his defence. We can't continue.
Fine.
I'll tell them.
You want to punch these guys, they're so stupid!
They're quite friendly, really.
Regardless, your defence is yours until it's given in court.
I'm not mad, Mrs Mills.
Dave, this is a ploy to stop us going to trial.
- I don't think John... - He is a British judge, Jo,
working for the Government.
- Why is he asking if I'm mad? - To try to stop the trial.
He's trying to be fair to you.
They were terrorists I shot. I know they were.
But unfortunately, Dave, your only witness died in your arms.
No-one believes he existed.
- He was never found. - He was there.
Someone's hiding those hospital records.
Can you stop the psychiatrists saying I'm mad?
- Is that what they're going to say? - I'm not mad, Mrs Mills.
I'm not.
Does psychiatry not obscure the waters of criminal trials?
- Is this what you wish, monsieur? - You know differently.
I can order this not to happen.
Then we'll fall out publicly.
Your government is in a most unhappy place.
The Iraqis want this atrocity condemned, and your army is in need of protection.
Madness is a convenient escape.
The psychiatrists may confirm he's not mad.
My concern is to be convinced
that Clark was in control of his mind when he shot those people.
Otherwise, the trial cannot proceed.
This could mean the British Army escaping without punishment.
Is this Judge Deed's intention?
I can think of no other reason to examine the psychiatrists.
Deed wanted to shorten the trial time, not extend it.
Then I will ask our Foreign Minister
to complain to the United Nations about Judge Deed.
Perhaps we can remove him.
MARIE: We can hope.
- Is Deed helping us, Alan? - For once, he appears to be.
He would help us by denying Mrs Mills and her cronies their international platform.
We plan to separate Mrs Mills from her loony friends...
...and undermine their case.
That'll delay things.
I had no idea he'd try to shorten the trial time.
Your medics could help,
if the Army were to reconsider its position on Private Clark's mental state.
And how would that help the situation in Basra?
A speedy resolution will benefit everyone.
Yes, I suppose.
(SIGHS) Our boys are having a difficult time.
But your way so frequently prevails, Marie.
This is such an important trial for you, Claude.
We must not allow ourselves to be embarrassed.
Monsieur Deed is right to seek records
that may have come detached from that dead witness.
How? Iraq is in chaos, Claude, the result of invading forces.
Then he will insist on the psychiatrists.
Claude.
There is, um...
something I must tell you about Deed.
It's messy.
Then you'd better come to my chambers.
Your taxi is waiting, Doctor.
Can you give this to Sir John Deed for me, please?
- Thank you. - Thank you.
(CHATTER)
Answer me, monsieur. Are you still sexually pressuring Marie Madsen?
Oh, please!
- Monsieur? - This is all nonsense.
You find women troublesome, no?
But I love them!
- You have such a reputation. - Evidence, Claude.
Marie is very beautiful, no?
She should try using a little less sex and a little more law.
I will examine those psychiatrists.
In any dangerous situation, the normal response is fight or flight.
This is what adrenaline does for us.
In soldiers, the urge to flee is suppressed,
both by training and by peer-group pressure.
Soldiers are not normal?
If you accept the norm as not unquestioningly submitting to discipline,
or subjecting oneself to danger.
Does Private Clark need to subject himself to danger?
That tendency exists in most soldiers.
Private Clark comes from a very protected background.
His mother is an invalid and was confined to a wheelchair soon after his birth.
His older sisters are her carers
and brought up Private Clark after his father deserted the family.
He has a greater need for danger than most.
Does that predispose him to a low threshold of self-control?
In my opinion, yes.
In your opinion, was he beyond reasonable self-control at the time of the shooting?
On re-examining the hours of interviews, I'd say he was.
Thank you.
- (LOW CHATTER) - (LIFT BELL RINGS)
Hi. 312, please.
- (LIFT BELL RINGS) - Thank you.
- Dr Pavely left this for you, sir. - Thanks.
- Is she coming back? - She's kept her room on.
(LAUGHTER)
See if you can get Dr Pavely's number, will you?
(LAUGHTER AND CHATTER)
COURT OFFICIAL: La cour se lève.
Madame Mills.
In your original opinion, along with that of Doctors Denman and Smith,
you thought he was "reasoning and therefore responsible".
Madame, you appear to be working against your client.
No, these are his instructions.
He won't accept he was in shock and therefore not responsible.
When the Government puts a young soldier in the position
that Private Clark was put in,
even with all his training, he is still subject to human error in extremis.
He found himself in the most desperate, terrifying situation,
with only a fraction of a second to respond.
He believes that in killing terrorists as he did, he exercised properjudgment.
His colonel agreed with that, initially.
I have a copy of Colonel Roth's report.
(WHISPERING)
How was this obtained, Mrs Mills?
It was sent to me anonymously from Brigade Headquarters.
- The sender is unknown? - Regrettably.
Perhaps the prosecution can use its considerable investigatory powers
to identify the sender.
Resume, Madame Mills.
Dr Froad, are psychiatric disorders prevalent in the soldiers serving in Iraq?
They appear wherever soldiers wage war.
- Particularly so in Iraq? - There are stress problems.
Isn't it true that out of a force of approximately 8,000,
over 1,500 have been sent home suffering psychiatric disorders?
There is a lot of stress.
Is that a yes or a no, Doctor?
Yes.
Was Private Clark sent home suffering with a psychiatric condition
two months before the shootings,
but then declared fit for active service again?
Mistakenly, in my opinion.
But your original opinion when you saw him back in Iraq
had been that he was fit for active service.
It was, but on reflection, I was wrong in that.
Has pressure been put on you to change that opinion?
- We did a longer examination. - I see.
Doctor.
Are you now saying that Private Clark was so stressed
that he wasn't responsible for these killings?
I am saying his actions were simply a reflex. We say he was "automated".
- No controlling mind. - No!
No, that's not right.
Sir Joseph Channing's clerk rang, Judge.
She's looking for a date to review the Shelby Brookes appeal.
What's our timetable here?
Well, Judge Previn has to go to Paris tomorrow, so tomorrow's possible.
OK, fine.
I somehow feel we're letting Private Clark down, badly.
He's very unhappy about those psychiatrists.
A guilty plea would be more honourable, sir.
Yeah.
I can't go along with quashing this conviction.
The man was at a political rally being deliberately provocative.
Urging people to "take action like proper citizens"?!
It was rather vague.
Brookes was careful to avoid concrete threats,
while exercising his democratic right to argue
that Mohammed was backward and primitive.
Who's to say he's not right,
when one considers how Islam treats women and homosexuals?
That's hardly relevant, anyway,
as much the same could be said of Roman Catholicism or Judaism.
The mens rea in this offence is intention.
A conviction must be based on proof
that Brookes deliberately intended to incite hatred against religion.
Yes, intention is very difficult to define in law,
but I'm of the view that that was his intention.
No. That's where the original trial judge went wrong.
He failed to allow the jury to consider this
as something primarily subjective, as the law requires.
Not that I blame him.
I mean, the legislation is the usual bugger's muddle nowadays.
- (CLOCK CHIMES) - I'm with Monty on this.
No-one was being attacked in the speech
or reviled for being something he cannot change, like his race.
But criticism of his ideas and religion must be allowed,
even if those criticisms are harsh and aggressive.
I mean, we can lampoon Roman Catholicism without fear of death threats.
No, Section 29 (j) of the Public Order Act makes clear
that it was not intended to prohibit religious criticism,
or even the expression of abuse or insults.
The conclusion's the same, Joe.
Think about it, John.
(GAVEL BANGING)
All rise.
It is the view of this court
that the judge at Mr Brookes's original trial failed to direct the jury
to the protections provided in Section 29 (j) of the Public Order Act.
The wording is very clear.
It specifically allows the expression of, and let me quote ipsissima verba,
"dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions,
"or the beliefs or practices of the adherents."
Now, there is, in a free society, an important difference between that
and the intentional stirring-up of hatred against people on religious grounds.
That difference was not made clear adequately to the jury.
Therefore, we quash the conviction.
- (LOUD DISSENT FROM GALLERY) - The appellant may be released.
We shall rise whilst the public gallery is cleared.
Isn't there a London contact for Dr Pavely?
- Only the number the hotel has. - It's never switched on.
I could check some other sources, Sir John.
(MAN TALKING ON RADIO)
- (BIRDSONG) - (DOG BARKS)
- What happened yesterday? - Last-minute changes.
- I had no contact. - No.
- Do you have them? - Of course.
So small, it only kills the target.
They'll trip as soon as the box is opened.
Fat old men love chocolate.
You've made excellent contact with our enemy.
I was happy to do this for you.
Your impeccable credentials weren't questioned.
He seems such a reasonable man.
That's how treacherously deceptive Western justice is.
Hm.
They smile while they kill your brothers.
- Has something happened to my brothers? - No.
Contact has been made.
They are training in Afghanistan with the mujaheddin.
Their cause is just, sister. But we can bring them back for you.
First, there's something else we require of you.
Hello, Dave.
How are you?
- Margaret, how did you get...? - As part of your defence team.
Mark wanted to have a word.
- They treating you right? - Can't complain.
No, you were never a complainer.
We all admired you for that.
How's things with the rags?
(SIGHS) Bad and getting worse.
The plan by the British Army and the British Government
is to undermine Private Clark's defence and so deny him his day in court.
They are trying to recategorise Private Clark as mad so he can't stand trial.
It is members of the British Government who should be tried as war criminals,
not Private Clark.
Our Government should be on trial for persisting in this illegal war.
- A war which, I might add... - What is going on?
How will this help our client? We'll be reported to the Bar Council.
It cuts the ground from under them, Jo.
SIMON: ...nor the international community as a whole.
Do you realise what your cronies have done?
I think it was justified.
Are you as warped as they are?
You're the leader, you're going to have to take the rap.
You will get reported to the Bar Council.
It's just another way for the Government to put pressure on us.
Listen to you! You're even beginning to sound like them.
- You're out to stop this trial. - No.
Defect of mind.
If he went not guilty on failure to appreciate unlawfulness,
he might have walked.
He was sound when he was sent back to Iraq.
- I was just trying to help you. - We want our day in court.
Are you out to score political points or help your client?
- That is pretty cheap. - (CHUCKLES)
You may not like me joining this set, but we never compromise our clients.
Their interests and your client's don't coincide.
They coincide exactly.
Private Clark was sent to do a job he was trained for.
He made a judgment call
that doesn't accord with the shifting sands of the Government's war policy.
That does not make him guilty.
He emptied a whole magazine into a group of civilians, including children.
- 30 bullets. - Mm-hm. In four seconds.
Well, that's hardly a split-second decision.
But children made objects of war can kill as easily as their parents can.
No, that argument's unwinnable.
Well, it would be before a jury.
Defect of mind.
The court could request you to enter that plea.
That would make my client a scapegoat and get your employers off the hook.
The Government does not employ me. Why would I support such a position?
Yes, John...
why would you?
- That seemed rather tense... - Sorry.
No, it's all right, it's all right, she's here now. Well, you're back.
Uh-huh.
I tried calling you. How long are you back for?
Until I get the AIDS conference organised.
We need the pharmaceutical companies to donate more drugs. Urgently, you know?
Yep. You better try blackmail.
Remembering to stay just the side of what's legal.
Oh, yes, where is that? Huh?
Well, we could have dinner and work out precisely where.
Is that work...
or social?
It's whatever we decide it is.
(BIRDSONG)
(LIFT BELL RINGS)
(BIRDSONG OUTSIDE)
(BEEPING)
(SNIFFS)
Aah!
(GRUNTS AND SOBS)
(SOBBING)