*/
Mark Hill QC reports on the mock trial of the Barons who negotiated the sealing of Magna Carta
For centuries, courts were held in the splendour of Westminster Hall, adjudicating upon mundane disputes, as well as major trials, such as those of Thomas More, Guy Fawkes and Charles I.
It was therefore fitting for it to be the venue for a mock treason trial of the Barons who negotiated the sealing of Magna Carta in 1215. A sense of pageantry was instilled by a procession of Serjeants at Arms from the Commonwealth and the USA, whose ceremonial dress brought a Gilbert and Sullivan feel to the event.
Some 800 members of the public had secured tickets to observe James Eadie QC, for the prosecution, and Nathalie Lieven QC, for the accused, argue their respective cases. Four witnesses were called, each played by a modern day counterpart. Former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, inhabited the role of William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, as if born to it, bringing to life the stone effigy in the Temple Church. Barrister turned comedian, Clive Anderson, gave a portrayal of King John which unleashed an element of camp, previously unremarked upon by historians. Lord Lisvane, not long retired as Clerk of the House of Commons, was a magnificent Stephen Langton, mixing piety and haughty authority as Archbishop of Canterbury in a way that Justin Welby can only dream of. Historian Professor David Carpenter, who as the nominal defendant Baron Robert FitzWalter stood to lose his liberty and his life in the event of a conviction, seemed surprisingly the most relaxed. He bantered with the court, even teasing prosecution counsel for a slip of the tongue in referring to the signing, rather than the sealing, of the Charter.
The scenario was entirely fictitious. Notwithstanding the troubled times, no treason trial arose from the events of Runnymede. But every effort was made to create an atmosphere of historical accuracy with an illustrated souvenir brochure, and narration by professional broadcaster, Gavin Esler, in the manner of a Pathé newsreel.
There was humour too – with varying degrees of subtlety – including contemporary allusions by counsel to withholding evidence due to national security, or for the protection of sources, and to the threat of governance from Europe. King John, very much in the style of a pantomime villain, reminded the bench (more than once) that they were his judges.
Baron FitzWalter’s appeal to clauses 39 and 40 of Magna Carta and his application for trial by his peers was summarily rejected by the court: in part because the Charter was so new its provisions were still uncertain, but mainly because of the distance travelled by the distinguished panel of judges – from America, Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court; from New Zealand, Dame Sian Elias, the country’s Chief Justice and (less convincingly) from the other side of Parliament Square in the case of Lord Neuberger, President of our own Supreme Court.
After retiring for a respectful period, the bench returned a unanimous Not Guilty verdict. Justice Breyer departed from the conceit of the evening and delivered an impassioned encomium of Magna Carta, or at least its spirit as now embedded in US constitutional law. Dame Sian analysed the evidence, clearly finding William Marshal a credible and persuasive witness. She rejected the contention that the Charter was extracted from King John at swordspoint. Lord Neuberger, concurring with Dame Sian, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove an essential ingredient of the common law offence of treason, namely that the acts of the defendant barons were “unjustified”. On that narrow issue, the anxious looking barons were acquitted.
As treason trials go, it had proved a jolly good night out.
A video of the event, which was held on 31 July, is available to view at www.youtube.com/uksupremecourt.
Contributor Mark Hill QC, Francis Taylor Building Mark is co-editor, with Robin Griffith-Jones, of a volume of essays, Magna Carta, Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
It was therefore fitting for it to be the venue for a mock treason trial of the Barons who negotiated the sealing of Magna Carta in 1215. A sense of pageantry was instilled by a procession of Serjeants at Arms from the Commonwealth and the USA, whose ceremonial dress brought a Gilbert and Sullivan feel to the event.
Some 800 members of the public had secured tickets to observe James Eadie QC, for the prosecution, and Nathalie Lieven QC, for the accused, argue their respective cases. Four witnesses were called, each played by a modern day counterpart. Former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, inhabited the role of William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, as if born to it, bringing to life the stone effigy in the Temple Church. Barrister turned comedian, Clive Anderson, gave a portrayal of King John which unleashed an element of camp, previously unremarked upon by historians. Lord Lisvane, not long retired as Clerk of the House of Commons, was a magnificent Stephen Langton, mixing piety and haughty authority as Archbishop of Canterbury in a way that Justin Welby can only dream of. Historian Professor David Carpenter, who as the nominal defendant Baron Robert FitzWalter stood to lose his liberty and his life in the event of a conviction, seemed surprisingly the most relaxed. He bantered with the court, even teasing prosecution counsel for a slip of the tongue in referring to the signing, rather than the sealing, of the Charter.
The scenario was entirely fictitious. Notwithstanding the troubled times, no treason trial arose from the events of Runnymede. But every effort was made to create an atmosphere of historical accuracy with an illustrated souvenir brochure, and narration by professional broadcaster, Gavin Esler, in the manner of a Pathé newsreel.
There was humour too – with varying degrees of subtlety – including contemporary allusions by counsel to withholding evidence due to national security, or for the protection of sources, and to the threat of governance from Europe. King John, very much in the style of a pantomime villain, reminded the bench (more than once) that they were his judges.
Baron FitzWalter’s appeal to clauses 39 and 40 of Magna Carta and his application for trial by his peers was summarily rejected by the court: in part because the Charter was so new its provisions were still uncertain, but mainly because of the distance travelled by the distinguished panel of judges – from America, Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court; from New Zealand, Dame Sian Elias, the country’s Chief Justice and (less convincingly) from the other side of Parliament Square in the case of Lord Neuberger, President of our own Supreme Court.
After retiring for a respectful period, the bench returned a unanimous Not Guilty verdict. Justice Breyer departed from the conceit of the evening and delivered an impassioned encomium of Magna Carta, or at least its spirit as now embedded in US constitutional law. Dame Sian analysed the evidence, clearly finding William Marshal a credible and persuasive witness. She rejected the contention that the Charter was extracted from King John at swordspoint. Lord Neuberger, concurring with Dame Sian, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove an essential ingredient of the common law offence of treason, namely that the acts of the defendant barons were “unjustified”. On that narrow issue, the anxious looking barons were acquitted.
As treason trials go, it had proved a jolly good night out.
A video of the event, which was held on 31 July, is available to view at www.youtube.com/uksupremecourt.
Contributor Mark Hill QC, Francis Taylor Building Mark is co-editor, with Robin Griffith-Jones, of a volume of essays, Magna Carta, Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
Mark Hill QC reports on the mock trial of the Barons who negotiated the sealing of Magna Carta
For centuries, courts were held in the splendour of Westminster Hall, adjudicating upon mundane disputes, as well as major trials, such as those of Thomas More, Guy Fawkes and Charles I.
In this month’s column, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights the many reasons why barristers should pay the Bar Representation Fee and back the Bar Council’s efforts on behalf of the profession
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Leading legal DNA, drug, and alcohol testing provider AlphaBiolabs has made its first Giving Back charity draw of 2024 with Andrew Sibson, a Legal Officer at Leeds City Council, being chosen as its first winner
Discover Lloyd’s unique approach to financial planning and experience working with barristers
Trust Delaunay Wealth to stand by your side amid the uncertainties ahead, writes Lloyd French
Lighting fires that cast unfairness into the shadows, creating history at home and abroad, and being comfortable with who you are – the remarkable criminal and international human rights barrister Kirsty Brimelow KC
No longer an exclusive boys’ club, but still some way to go. To mark International Women's Day, Millie Rai describes what it’s like being a young female barrister at the Commercial Chancery Bar
Marking International Women's Day, Will Tyler KC interviews two female silks at the helm of two huge specialist Bar associations about their lives and careers – finding a common theme both to their success and the challenges facing their respective Bars
If we fail to nurture women’s collective talent, half the population of this country will not be properly represented – from the junior Criminal Bar right up to the senior Judiciary. We cannot let all the hard work be undone, says Tana Adkin KC on International Women's Day
In this month’s column, Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights the many reasons why barristers should pay the Bar Representation Fee and back the Bar Council’s efforts on behalf of the profession