Khan: Dispute over statement on arrest warrants
UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) is to complain to the Bar Standards Board (BSB) about the conduct of International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan KC in applying to the court for arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant.
UKLFI chief executive Jonathan Turner, a barrister himself, told Legal Futures that UKLFI intended to submit complaints to the BSB and ICC “for the violations of their respective rules identified in our letter” to Mr Khan, after he declined to confirm he would investigate the points it raised in a letter last week.
The Office of the Prosecutor has hit back, warning UKLFI to be “alive to their own ethical responsibilities and their duty not to mislead”.
This triggered a further response from UKLFI, strongly disputing “any allegation that we are in breach of BSB rules”.
In the letter, UKLFI alleged that the prosecutor was in breach of multiple BSB core duties in the statement he made when he filed applications to the ICC for the arrest warrants.
UKLFI said it was “very concerned that the applications appear to comprise false information and to omit material information and evidence contradicting that false information and/or otherwise exonerating the accused”.
The omissions included “important material that has come to light since you submitted the applications”.
UKLFI said its analysis found that “every phrase of every sentence of his summary of the charges was contradicted by information in the public domain”.
The group continued that, “with all due respect”, it appeared that the “continuing publication of the statement containing false allegations” was in breach of BSB core duty 3 (barristers must act with ‘honesty and integrity’) and core duty 5 (they must not behave in a way likely to diminish public trust and confidence).
If the statement was “a fair summary of the applications”, Mr Khan was allegedly “not acting with candour” in pursuing them and not complying with the requirements of the BSB Handbook, including core duties 3,5 and 1 (barristers must observe their duty to the court in the administration of justice).
If the statement was “not a fair summary of the applications”, UKLFI argued that it would be “additionally misleading” in misrepresenting them as well as making false allegations, in breach of core duties 3 and 5.
UKLFI said Mr Khan also had obligations under the ICC regulations and codes of conduct, including requirements of “competence, integrity, probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness”.
Furthermore, under article 54(1)(a) of the Rome Statute that underpin the court, the prosecutor must, “in order to establish the truth”, investigate “incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally”.
The Office of the Prosecutor confirmed to Legal Futures that it had received the letter, and that UKLFI had been granted leave to make observations before the Pre-Trial Chamber, which will decide on Mr Khan’s applications.
“The merits of the case are sub judice. For this reason, the Office does not mean to engage substantially with the allegations detailed in the letter.
“With respect to the threat to report alleged concerns to the Bar Standards Board, UKLFI must decide what is appropriate, alive to their own ethical responsibilities and their duty not to mislead.
“The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC underlines that it will not be improperly influenced by any form of threat and harassment in pursuing its Rome Statute responsibilities independently and impartially.”
In response, Mr Turner told Legal Futures: “We strongly dispute any allegation that we are in breach of BSB rules and note that the Office of the Prosecutor has not identified any specific rule that we have allegedly breached or any grounds for such an allegation.
“Our letter to the prosecutor (which we have published in full) is very fully substantiated and we believe that every statement we make in it is true. We are not seeking improperly to influence the prosecutor, but rather to ensure that he complies with his responsibilities.”
Mr Turner said it was “misleading” to say the merits of the case were sub judice.
“[Mr Khan] has submitted to the court that he alone should address the court on the merits at this stage and that the court should ignore any other observations on the merits (including ours).
“At the same time, the prosecutor has not provided the court with material that would enable it properly to make any judgment on the merits, including the judgements which it is required to make at this stage as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant have committed any crimes within the jurisdiction of the court and whether their arrest is necessary to prevent them continuing to commit those alleged crimes or any related crimes.”
In a propaganda war the winner will always be he who has the deepest pockets. Qatar has very deep pockets.