Your questions to Courtenay Griffiths QC

"There's an unbalanced application of international law against African leaders...If Blair came to The Hague I'd switch sides and do some prosecuting."

So the Ex-Prime Minister of the country that raised you, and helped you on your path to getting in to Law (an option that probably wouldn't have been available to you in many other countrys, probably including Jamaica)

Thats when it crosses the line? Terrorists, Murderers you won't make any moral judgement on but Tony Blair, who for all his faults probably never actualy killed anyone personally. Who put his career at risk as well as British lives by helping to take down Saddam Hussein. (i'm sure you and him where best buddies) and try to make the world a slightly better place by helping those who can't help themselves. Granted it didn't go amazingly well, but still... Thats too far for you? Then it's time to dish out some pay back? I just can't fathom how that make sence in anyones mind.

I. When defending an accused person like Charles Taylor - who many saw as the fulcrum of Liberian and Sierra Leonian civil wars (taking into account the attrocities perpetrated in those wars), do you actually supposed that the accused person is innocent of the charges or you defend with the mind that the law is capable of twisting facts?
II. Have you met wet with any victim of the Sierra Lonean civil war before now?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think you have already made a moral judgement on that person to take up his defence. Deciding if something is worth doing/ winning etc sometimes overrides all sense and - just like "love-at-first-sight" - will only take a minute to decide to do.

I suspect the underlying make-up of your psyche is that you wish to represent those that have no defence, or who are the most hated enemy-No.1 etc. This could have been a challenge at the start of your career, but to constantly do it smacks of a desire to buck the system just because you can. And, as other commentators have said - where do you draw the line about what is right and what is not - if you are no longer on par with acceptable judgmental ethics or because you put yourself above them?

Or do the guilty pay more for your services?

As defence counsel to Charles Taylor, you would like to start with a clean slate and presume he is innocent of all charges. But as an accomplished lawyer you would have followed the events of the civil war in great detail and would have realised by now the gross excesses carried out by Charles Taylor while he was in power. Is it not difficult then to defend him with a clear conscience knowing he has stooped so low?

I don't know anything about Mr. Griffiths, I will have to do more research, but just from the few comments so far I would have to suspect that Mr. Griffiths, as other ambitious lawyers, like high profile, high controversy cases that make them well-known. I also didn't understand his comment about Tony Blair. Would he be willing to prosecute him instead of defend him because he is white? How can he say the morality of his clients do not concern him and he refuses to make moral judgements, then say that in that particular instance he would prosecute. Does race matter more than moral judgement?

You say you make no moral judgements and say that one man's terrorist is another man's war hero, but what's with the comment about Blair then?

Do you consider Blair as much worse than Charles Taylor, because it sure sounds like it...

Do you believe Charles Taylor is innocent?

Are you allowed to take payments from defendants?

With so many poor people having to rely on pro bono lawyers, do you sometimes feel, you, or your colleagues, should feel guilty about not defending a poor man charged for a regular felony when you're busy defending the world's richest and most notorious ex-dictators?

Mr. Courtenay Griffiths:
All men have prejudices, why do imagine yours are any more founded in logic than anyone else’s? In the end, more people die in Africa from governmental neglect than from wars. While in the UK, most every leader since the beginning of the twentieth century has striven successfully to reduce governmental negligent deaths to the barest minimum, and their responses to warlike provocations have been relatively reserved. No one gets everything perfectly correct, but comparisons of Mr. Blair’s sins to casual acceptance of deaths due to governmental bureaucratic incompetence and general corruption by even likable; but incompetent African leaders seems to be pushing the envelope of righteous indignation a bit much. In the end, death is death. Infant mortalities are simply battlefield deaths, only the appearance of the battlefield itself is different. Why not prosecute those responsible for these fatalities?
g

If there would be no mention of your name, your picture/image with regard to defending the accused in the cases you've done, would you still do it? I'm meaning, nobody would know your name, or what you're doing other than "defense counsel argues....." and nobody knows who the defense counsel is.

Re: "The morality of Charles Taylor is none of my business. That's between him and his God, whichever God he chooses to worship. My job is to present his case in court. I'm certainly not going to be making moral judgements about any of my clients. I've defended, for example, terrorists - but to make a moral judgement about such defendants is to forget that, you know, one man's terrorist is another man's war hero."

My questions piggyback some of the ones already asked. If you do not make moral judgements about clients what is your motivation for defending them? How do you seperate your personal judgements from professionalisn/maintaining nuetrality in defending someone? If you know without a doubt that someone is guilty is it difficult to defend them? It seems like it would be difficult to convince others of someone's innocence if you weren't assured of it yourself.

I am surprised that so many people don't understand why someone would defend a person accused of horrible crimes by the Powers that Be. It shows me a general public lack of knowledge of the history of The Magna Carta and of Habeas Corpus.

From all of the reports in the media in general that I have heard or read, Charles Taylor sounds to me like a real stinker of a human being and deserves to be brought to justice. But historically there have been instances when the Powers that Be have manufactured propaganda about some person and falsely accused him of wrongdoing in order to get him out of their way.

So I am in favor of someone like Mr. Courtenay Griffiths QC taking on the job of challenging the Powers that Be to show the evidence and prove that the defendant is really guilty of doing the crimes he is accused of. And if the Powers that Be cannot prove their accusations, show that the accused ought to be released and exonerated.

In a way, the two sides are on trial, the Powers that Be and the accused, and both need highly qualified lawyers on their sides. This process helps keep the government honest as well as bring real criminals to justice.

Morality!.QC has right of expression,Taylor has right to defence.Taylor was sent to court in the first place on marality grounds.However in the event of expressing such right QC words impings on another's for morality sake he should face the law.In the same vein if any one or group of people by words or conduct to Qc is racial they should face the law.We all have past,perhaps QC has repressed racial experiences.let him be bold enough to say and or differentiate between what he is doing and what he wants.Shall we bother if someone gets therapy?.

@ Tom - I don't think anyone is refuting that according to the judicial system Charles Taylor is entitled to a defence, and that Mr. Griffiths has a right to defend him. I'm more puzzled by the inconsistency in Mr. Griffith's statement about not making moral judgements about his clients, then stating that he would prosecute Tony Blair. It seems like his client's race (or their notoriety) is more important to him than his client's culpability. I understand how scarring it can be to have racism directed at you, and that he didn't like being thought a defendant because of his color, but two wrongs don't make a right. The judicial process itself is not in question.

Tom D Ford

Nobody is questioning Taylor's right to a trial, but apart from the things patti already said people are wondering why murderous dictators get all-star lawyer teams when the common man has to be satisfied with a pro bono lwayer. Add to that that if he is convicted Taylor will serve out his sentence in a luxurious European cell (no doubt with much more privileges than the average prisoner) while a common thief in his home country is packed with 10 cellmates in a small stinking, rat infested cell.

Whilst I do understand Mr. Courtnay Griffiths QC, is in the profession of defending in court, any client he represents in order to prove him or her innocent before the judge. My question would be to ask him " would you defend a person even knowing in your mind and heart that he was definitely guilty of the crimes he commited". And if he was to say yes, as it was his sloemn duty to do so, "would his conscience bother him afterwards when his client was found Not Guilty" and set free.

Mr Griffiths i respect your stands in defending Mr Charles Taylor for crimes against my country Sierra leone,Have u studied the history of Sierra Leone before the war when Sierra leone was the safiest and accademic state for all other African countries?Do u think Mr Taylor was not part of the civil war in Sierra leone directly or indirectly in supporting the rebels?
To Mr Charles Taylor,what do u think or feel about the poor innocent civilians dat are still sufferring in Liberia and Sierra Leone after the war?Do u realise dat many children are without there parents after the rebel war?Have u got children with ur wife and if so were are they now with ur wife?Will you ever apologise or show sympathy to the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia?Am currently staying in United Kingdom hoping and praying that Sierra leone will be better again after evil people like you are been purnish for your power hungry actions.

I am certain that Mr Charles Taylor will never go free from the charges against him no matter the qualification of his defence. What I believe as a victim of the war in Sierra leone is that.... When man fails to give justice God who is our creator will give it to those who deserve it.

The death of tens of thousand of poor people including women and children who were brutally killed during the war are awaiting those who are responsible for their sudden death.
Youssouf.

Why do we spend money on prosecuting someone like Chrles Taylor with a global audience, is this not a simple case for the Liberian Court of Law to address and decide upon ?

What is the added value of having such a reputed lawyer defend a man who has such a reputed history of actions ?

Are you telling me that none of the evidence against him taints your law abiding mind ?

And how can you claim to have not judged him knowing that it is only human nature to have a personal opinion regardelss of the morality you speak about.

- Have you ever defended someone who you knew was guilty?

- Do you ever feel guilt or regret for defending criminals?

- What drives you to defend some criminals (e.g. IRA, Charles Taylor), but want to prosecute others (e.g. Tony Blair).

I think it is only fair that everyone is given a fair trial no matter how damning the evidence against him is. We should not bring morality into this and let the courts decide one way or the other based on evidence presented to them.

Venkat, NC, USA

If Shell and BP had been prosecuted in the Hague for the destruction of the environment and people's lives in the Niger Delta, they would have been out of business years ago and the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico would never have happened. In the worlds of Martin Luther King, "Injustce anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

Trying to compare a countries Leader, who allegedly illegally pays for arms with blood diamonds. Uses those arms to kill innocent people for racial, monetary or some desire to be all powerful. To another countries leader who desires to defend those types of innocent people, seriously puts into question your humanity and competency for true justice.

Just listening to you for 15 minutes and doing a little reading tells me your actions are taken to massage your ego, like every other ambulance chancing barrister or lawyer. You must win against the odds and you know some how, you will be paid handsomely for it. Even if you don't win.

Could an African, European, American ( all the counties in the Americas, Asian or Middle Eastern leader be tried in their own country or in their region effectively and justly?

NO! That's why we have the Hague and ICC and their exclusivity from any country!

Does your guest have any credentials, like has he been admitted to any bar? He's claiming to be a lawyer, and talks about the presumption of innocence like he has no idea what it means. It doesn't mean "you are not guilty!" all it means is that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and if the prosecution doesn't present a case establishing all of the elements of the crime, that even if the defense does nothing, the defense will still win, becuase the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Any lawyer would know this and would have stated it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why does everyone want to criminalize George Bush and say that he "lied"? Everyone wants to backtrack and use them as examples as people deserving of prosecution. They should not be prosecuted. Everyone supported taking action after 9/11. The same with Tony Blair.

We do not need an international council for legal justice. That would be terrible. All issues being decided by them? That would be dangerous.

Well said Ros!

It's great to catch a Lawyer, fumble over his own words, statements and beliefs.

Justice applies to African leaders, but not to the English Prime Minister or The USA's President who are now automatically guilty in Mr. Griffiths view. No mention of Obama, who is now considered a WAR President!

A disappointing racial view.

"There's an unbalanced application of international law against African leaders...If Blair came to The Hague I'd switch sides and do some prosecuting."

While agreeing, that the former PM Tony Blair, at the very least, should be given a chance to clear his bad reputation before the international war crimes court in the Hague, the intonation of the above statement is not free from prejudice.
Racism is not just a sickness of "White" nations, as so often suggested in critical assertions, but also quite common within nearly all races of humanity. Jews, Africans and Arabs, although so often claiming to be victims of intolerance, are in no way themselves free from such bigotry.
Of course a QC also has the right to his own opinion, but racism in any form should have no place in British courts. Not even from Mr. Griffiths!

22. At 6:14pm on 19 Jan 2011, Irene in Texas wrote:
If Shell and BP had been prosecuted in the Hague for the destruction of the environment and people's lives in the Niger Delta, they would have been out of business years ago and the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico would never have happened. In the worlds of Martin Luther King, "Injustce anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"

You are naive to believe that the closure of BP or Shell would have prevented the blow out in the gulf. There are enough other companies that simply would have taken their share. I may not have been BP, but could as well been Exxon etc etc...

I wonder if Griffiths thinks that by defending cases like this, he enables the problems Africa has, by helping to get off corrupt people that contribute to the downward spiral of African countries? There's only so long you can blame the problems of Africa on the legacy of Colonialism, one day africans will have to accept responsibility for their problems, and defending people like Charles Taylor isn't going to help things, though he of course doese have a right to defense counsel.

The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC told us on a previous WHYS show that it is not a Crime to invade a nation like Bush/Cheney did with Iraq, but if it was a Crime would you defend such horrible and evil monsters as Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/Powell?

@Tom Ford- Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld probably would not get a defense from Mr. Griffiths, they are white. Mr. Powell might have a chance.

i can never understand the legal system why people like this defend criminals that are proven to be criminals by there own admission and yet they still defend them.is this democracy as i am confused or is it large amounts of money for the barristers with no conscience.