Called to Account - Indictment of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair for the Crime of Aggression Against Iraq - A Hearing

Synopsis

In January 2007 two leading barristers (from Matrix Chambers): Philippe Sands QC (the the prosecution) and Julian Knowles (or the defence) will be test the evidence on whether there would be sufficient grounds to indict the British Prime Minister for the crime of aggression against Iraq. They will examine a number of distinguished witnesses, including Members of Parliament, diplomats, international lawyers, civil servants, United Nations officials, policy advisors, Intelligence experts and journalists. The arguments and testimony gathered will be edited into a play by Richard Norton-Taylor which will examine the criminal implications of the British Governments' decision to use force against Iraq, and allows the audience, to decide whether an indictment in this case is proven.

Our Review:

24 April 2007

My friend, a prominent QC, said to me in the interval that the decision to go to war against Iraq was probably the most important this country had taken in the past one hundred years. There is no doubt that Called to Account, billed as an indictment of the Prime Minister, and devised by the Guardian journalist Richard Norton-Taylor and the director Nicolas Kent, considers this decision with diligence and trepidation.

And yet the resultant show - show trial? – is about as exciting as watching paint dry and far less enthralling than almost all of the previous Tricycle tribunals, especially those on the Scott Arms to Iraq inquiry, the Stephen Lawrence case, the Nuremberg trials and the Hutton inquiry. The difference here is that Norton-Taylor and Kent have initiated their own inquiry, aided by two real-life barristers, Philippe Sands QC for the prosecution and Julian Knowles for the defence, who interviewed witnesses earlier this year, producing 28 hours o...

Read more of the review

Latest User Review

Gareth James - 1 May 2007:

Well, it's actually 4 stars for gripping drama, but 2 stars for objectivity. I saw 4 of the Tricycle's 'tribunal' plays, which got 4 stars for both drama AND objectivity. The problem here is two-fold - crossing the line from staging edited versions of actual inquiries to creating its own implies an 'editorial' view and the 'play' itself is imbalanced because of the weak advocacy for the 'defence' due to the quality of the interviewing from which it is drawn and / or the editing and / or the conviction of the actor. Anyway, in this sense a huge disappointment, but still a compelling evening of theatre and hopefully the Tricycle will retain their pre-eminent position as the stage for 'political' theatre. ...

Read more and add your own review

Related Whatsonstage.com Articles

Review Round-up: Critics Call Tricycle to Account More»