The Tyrannicide Brief

Charles I waged civil wars that cost one in ten Englishmen their lives. But in 1649 parliament was hard put to find a lawyer with the skill and daring to prosecute a King who was above the law: in the end the man they briefed was the radical barrister, John Cooke. Cooke was a plebeian, son of a poor farmer, but he had the courage to bring the King's trial to its dramatic conclusion: the English republic. Cromwell appointed him as a reforming Chief Justice in Ireland, but in 1660 he was dragged back to the Old Bailey, tried and brutally executed. John Cooke was the bravest of barristers, who risked his own life to make tyranny a crime. He originated the right to silence, the 'cab rank' rule of advocacy and the duty to act free-of-charge for the poor. He conducted the first trial of a Head of State for waging war on his own people - a forerunner of the prosecutions of Pinochet, Miloševic and Saddam Hussein, and a lasting inspiration to the modern world.

This is a life of John Cook, the bravest of barristers, whose bowels were publicly burned as punishment for sending the King to the scaffold. In 1649, no lawyer in the country would accept the brief of prosecuting Charles I. All packed their bags and disappeared to the country, except one, the forty-year old John Cook. The charge was treason - not, of course against himself, the monarch, but against his people - bringing evidence to show that Charles had begun wars which cost the lives of innumerable Englishmen and had sanctioned murder, rape and pillage. Cook was a farmer's son from Leicestershire, who had studied at Oxford and travelled widely in Europe. He was a political visionary, concerned for social justice and liberty of conscience, and especially with reforming the old, barbaric legal system. His fate was sad. He had little sympathy with Cromwell's strict protectorate - and at the restoration in 1660, with the other 'regicides' who signed the king's death warrant, he was arrested, tried, and brutally hung drawn and quartered. -Geoffrey Robertson is one of Britain's leading counsels, famous for his battles for civil liberties. In this gripping account of a sensational life, which uses Cook's own moving speeches and letters, Robertson relates the call for a republic to the debates of today. More significantly, he presents the indictment of Charles I as a precedent for trials of modern war criminals and leaders - Goering, Pinochet, Milosevic - who have oppressed their own people. John Cook was not a regicide but a tyrannicide - the first to argue that brutal action by a head of state justified 'regime change'. Centuries after these brutal events, he is still a potent example to us all.

The biggest question in the world of art and culture concerns the return of property taken without consent. Throughout history, conquerors or colonial masters have taken artefacts from subjugated peoples, who now want them returned from museums and private collections in Europe and the USA. The controversy rages on over the Elgin Marbles, and has been given immediacy by figures such as France's President Macron, who says he will order French museums to return hundreds of artworks acquired by force or fraud in Africa, and by British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has pledged that a Labour government would return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. Elsewhere, there is a debate in Belgium about whether the Africa Museum, newly opened with 120,000 items acquired mainly by armed forces in the Congo, should close. Although there is an international convention dated 1970 that deals with the restoration of artefacts stolen since that time, there is no agreement on the rules of law or ethics which should govern the fate of objects forcefully or lawlessly acquired in previous centuries. Who Owns History? delves into the crucial debate over the Elgin Marbles, but also offers a system for the return of cultural property based on human rights law principles that are being developed by the courts. It is not a legal text, but rather an examination of how the past can be experienced by everyone, as well as by the people of the country of origin.

Argues that institutions and culture serve as important elements of international legal order.

Tyrannicide uses a captivating story of the escape of thirty-four slaves from a British privateer to unpack the experiences of slavery and slave law in South Carolina and Massachusetts during the Revolutionary Era, highlighting differences and foreshadowing the Civil War.

Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) was active during the Renaissance, developing adventurous ideas even while serving as a churchman. The religious issues with which he engaged – spiritual, apocalyptic and institutional – were to play out in the Reformation

THE CASE OF THE POPE delivers a devastating indictment of the way the Vatican has run a secret legal system that shields paedophile priests from criminal trial around the world. Is the Pope morally or legally responsible for the negligence that has allowed so many terrible crimes to go unpunished? Should he and his seat of power, the Holy See, continue to enjoy an immunity that places them above the law? Geoffrey Robertson QC, a distinguished human rights lawyer and judge, evinces a deep respect for the good works of Catholics and their church. But, he argues, unless Pope Benedict XVI can divest himself of the beguilements of statehood and devotion to obsolescent canon law, the Vatican will remain a serious enemy to the advance of human rights.