FERDINAND VON SCHIRACH
Terror
translated by
DAVID TUSHINGHAM
with a speech by the author when presenting
the M100 Sanssouci Media Award 2015
to Charlie Hebdo
Contents
Title Page
First production
Characters
Terror
Prologue
Act One
Act Two
The Verdicts
Guilty Verdict
Not Guilty Verdict
‘Keep Going Come What May’
About the Authors
Copyright
Terror was first performed in London at the Lyric Hammersmith on 14 June 2017. The cast, in alphabetical order, was as follows:
Prosecuting Counsel Nelson Emma Fielding
Christian Lauterbach John Lightbody
Defence Counsel Biegler Forbes Masson
Presiding Judge Tanya Moodie
Franziska Meiser Shanaya Rafaat
Lars Koch Ashley Zhangazha
Directed by Sean Holmes
Set design by Anna Fleischle
Costume design by Loren Elstein
Lighting by Joshua Carr
Sound by Nick Manning
A map showing location of productions worldwide
together with the verdicts can be found at
http://terror.theater/en
Characters
Presiding Judge
Lars Koch
Defendant
Biegler
Defence Counsel, male
Nelson
State Prosecutor, female
Christian Lauterbach
Franziska Meiser
Stenographer
female
Guard
male
This print edition of Terror is based on the full, original German text and may differ from the version used in performance.
TERROR
Prologue
The Presiding Judge enters. The curtain remains closed behind him. He is wearing a dark suit, a white shirt and a white tie. He is carrying his gown over one arm. He speaks directly to the audience.
Presiding Judge Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I’m glad to see you all here on time. It’s not easy parking round here and this building is a bit of a rabbit warren … Anyway, it’s good that you’ve all managed to get here. Before we begin, I must ask you to forget everything that you have read or heard about this case. Yes, everything. It is you alone who have been called upon to judge this matter, you are the lay judges, the members of the public who today will sit in judgement on the defendant Lars Koch. The law grants you the power to determine the fate of a human being. Please take this responsibility seriously. You will judge solely what you hear in this courtroom. We lawyers describe this as ‘evidence gained from within the hearing itself’. That means: only what is said by the defendant, the witnesses, the joint plaintiffs and legal experts in this courtroom, only the evidence which we gather here may provide the basis for your verdict. At the end of the trial you will be obliged to vote, and I shall announce the verdict that you have reached.
In court proceedings we re-enact the events: the court is a stage. Of course we’re not going to perform a play, we’re not actors. We will be re-enacting the events through language, this is our way of understanding them. And it’s one that has stood the test of time. Hundreds of years ago the judges used to meet in a special place, one which was considered sacred, the thing. In those days to pronounce judgement meant to resolve disorder and restore order once again. Whenever harm was done – an attack by an enemy tribe for example – this was always the place where it would be discussed. Which woman was raped in the attack? Which hut was burnt to the ground? Which man was murdered? Our ancestors knew that in this way evil can lose its horror. Will we achieve that today? – I’m not sure. But we have to try. A judge does not regard anything as ‘evil’. His – or her – verdicts are not hell and damnation but acquittal, prison or preventive detention.
So make your judgement calmly and in your own time. And above all: remember that before you there is a human being, someone who has the same dreams as you, the same needs. He too, just like you, is trying to find happiness. And that’s why in your judgement you should retain your own humanity.
Now, I’d like to begin, but we’re still waiting for the Counsel for the Defence – he’s late.
The Guard approaches the Presiding Judge from the rear, says something to him quietly. The Presiding Judge nods. The Guard exits once again.
I’ve just been told he’s finally arrived. So, let us begin.
The Presiding Judge exits, putting on his gown as he walks.
Act One
A courtroom. In the centre the judge’s desk, with a Stenographer sitting on its right. The chair for the Presiding Judge is empty. To the left, beneath a window, sits the State Prosecutor with the joint plaintiff to her side and a little further back. The Counsel for the Defence is on the right. The Defendant is seated in a cell behind the Defence Counsel. In the centre, in front of the judge’s desk, stand an empty chair and table for the witnesses.
The Guard sits on a stool next to the door. The State Prosecutor and the Stenographer wear black gowns, white blouses and white scarves. The Defendant has appeared in his Air Force uniform. The Guard wears the uniform of court officials for the state of Berlin. The Defence Counsel is not wearing a gown. The Presiding Judge enters the courtroom through a narrow door behind the judge’s desk. At this point everyone on stage stands up.
Presiding Judge (standing) I declare this session of 16th division of the Criminal Court open. Please be seated.
The Presiding Judge sits down, followed by all the others. He waits until it is quiet.
For the record I confirm that the prosecution is represented by the State Prosecutor Ms Nelson, and Mr Biegler appears as Counsel for the Defence.
The defendant Major Lars Koch has been delivered here from custody. The court has therefore been assembled with all those present who were listed in the notice to appear. So far so good. Are there any questions or motions?
The State Prosecutor and Defence Counsel shake their heads.
Defence Counsel I would like Mr Koch to sit here next to me.
Presiding Judge Yes, I don’t think he’s a risk to anyone’s safety.
He turns to the Guard.
Sergeant, would you please …
The Guard opens the cell door. The Defendant emerges and sits down next to the Defence Counsel.
(To the Defendant.) Good morning, Mr Koch. I will now take your personal details. Your first name please?
Defendant Lars.
Presiding Judge And your date of birth?
Defendant 14th March 1982. I’m thirty-one years old.
Presiding Judge Are you married?
Defendant Yes.
Presiding Judge Do you have any children from or outside of this marriage?
Defendant One son, Boris. He’s two. No other children.
Presiding Judge And you live in Berlin?
Defendant Amselweg 56 in Steglitz.
Presiding Judge Mr Koch, you are a Major in the Air Force. You are currently being held in custody and have been relieved of your duties. Is that correct?
Defence Counsel My client’s employer, the Air Force, is waiting for the outcome of this trial before deciding on his future.
Presiding Judge Thank you.
(To the Stenographer.) Personal details are the same as on page 159, Volume 1 of the main files.
The Stenographer writes down the personal details.
Does the court have any more questions about the defendant’s personal details?
The State Prosecutor and Defence
Counsel both shake their heads.
Fine. If there are no further motions or questions … I would ask the prosecution to read out the charge.
Defence Counsel Can we open a window? The air in here’s terrible.
Presiding Judge You’re right. We’ve had this problem for days. Apparently the ventilation system is broken, that’s what the people in the office tell me. But if we open the window there’s too much noise.
Defence Counsel From the street?
Presiding Judge It’s so loud you can’t even hear yourself think.
Defence Counsel I have enough trouble with that as it is.
Presiding Judge I beg your pardon?
Defence Counsel Never mind.
Presiding Judge But would you please put on your gown, Mr Biegler?
Defence Counsel Oh. I hadn’t noticed. Rogues.
Presiding Judge Rogues? I don’t understand you.
Defence Counsel The gown … You know. In 1726 Frederick William I declared that all lawyers were to wear dark gowns. His exact words were: ‘So you can see the rogues coming from a long way off.’
Presiding Judge Aha.
Defence Counsel He had a point, the old King. Our colleagues are rather hard to take sometimes.
Presiding Judge Very well. Are you ready now, Mr Biegler?
Defence Counsel Yes.
Presiding Judge Then, if you please, State Prosecutor, the charge.
State Prosecutor (standing) Lars Koch, whose personal details have just been specified, is charged under the German Criminal Code according to section 154a, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on 26th May 2013 above the village of Oberappersdorf he did use deadly force to kill 164 people.
The charge states that on 26th May 2013 at 20:21 hours, using an air-to-air guided weapons system, he did shoot down a passenger aircraft type A320-100/200 manufactured by Airbus Industries belonging to Lufthansa German Airlines which was at that time flying from Berlin to Munich under flight code LH 2047, and did thereby kill the 164 persons on board. He is charged with the crime of murder according to section 211, paragraph 2, group 2, variant 3.52, paragraph 1 of the German Criminal Code.
Presiding Judge Thank you.
The charge has been referred unamended by a decision of the chamber on 28th February this year, on page 256 in Volume 6 of the main files.
(To the Defendant.) Mr Koch, in this trial you are accused of multiple murder. I am obliged to instruct you as the defendant that you may defend yourself by speaking or by being silent. You are not obliged to provide any testimony. If in the face of the charges raised against you you remain silent, the court cannot and shall not use your silence against you. Have you understood the charge and my instruction?
Defendant Yes.
Presiding Judge Very well. You will certainly have already discussed this with your Defence Counsel: at the preliminary proceedings you made a full confession. How do you wish to proceed today? Will you give testimony here?
Defendant (stands) I …
Defence Counsel pulls the Defendant by the sleeve back down on to his seat, and then stands up himself.
Defence Counsel I shall make a statement on behalf of the defendant.
Presiding Judge Fine. But you may remain seated.
Defence Counsel You know I prefer to stand. The dignity of the court …
Presiding Judge If it helps us get at the truth, very well.
Defence Counsel Ladies and gentlemen judges, every one of us knows where we were on 11th September 2001. Everyone knows where we saw those pictures for the first time – of the two planes which flew into the World Trade Center in New York, the third one which exploded by the Pentagon, and the fourth which crashed into a field near Pittsburgh. We can all see those people in front of us jumping to their deaths from a burning skyscraper. This was a terrorist act of mass murder. Eighteen months later a man here in Germany hijacked a light aircraft. He circled over Frankfurt and threatened to crash the plane into the headquarters of the European Central Bank. This triggered a major security alert and Frankfurt city centre was evacuated. In the event everything ended peacefully, the man landed and offered no resistance to his arrest.
But we had learnt something from this incident: we had finally understood that we need to protect ourselves.
That is why in 2005 a new law was passed, the Aviation Security Act. Our parliament agreed that if the worst did happen, then the Minister of Defence would be entitled to use armed force. Even against a passenger plane with innocent people on board. In the most extreme case a hijacked aircraft could be shot down. A majority of members of parliament voted for this law. It allowed the state to kill people. Not people who have committed a crime but people who are the victims of crime. You can imagine how long those debates went on in parliament.
A year after it was passed, the most significant paragraphs of this legislation were revoked by the Federal Constitutional Court. The Federal Constitutional Court is our supreme court. All powers of the state are bound by its decisions. And this court decreed that it was unconstitutional to kill innocent people in order to save other innocent people. One life should never be weighed against another.
You, ladies and gentlemen, are the judges who have to come to a decision today. What happened is as follows. A terrorist hijacked a passenger plane. He wanted to crash it into a football stadium and kill 70,000 people. But one man – this man – had the courage and the power to act. He shot that plane down and all 164 people aboard died. That is the charge which has been brought. And the prosecution is correct: Lars Koch did do this. He killed the people on that plane, men, women and children. He weighed it up: the lives of 164 innocent people against the lives of 70,000 innocent people. Lars Koch has admitted that he did this and we will do nothing to cover that up.
But, ladies and gentlemen, that is not the end of this trial, that is the beginning. There are 82 main files, 154 supplementary files, 46 folders of evidence, 15 files of photographs … All material relating to this case. My client has been in custody now for seven months, he has not seen his son in all that time, his wife is allowed to visit him once a fortnight for half an hour. But the only question in this case, the only question which you are being asked here today is: was Lars Koch permitted to kill these 164 people? Are there situations in our lives where it is right, proper and prudent to kill people? And indeed: where doing anything else would be absurd and even inhuman?
Of course such cases are so frightful as to make us question ourselves. But to believe that they do not exist because they are not allowed to exist – that is not only naive, it’s dangerous. In fact it’s very dangerous. There is no alternative: we have to accept that we live in a world where the most unimaginable and terrible things became reality a long time ago. We have to accept that there are limits to the principles of our constitution. And it is your job, ladies and gentlemen, as judges, your duty, to recognise this reality and to take account of it. I am confident that if you do so – do so fairly – that at the end of this trial you will find Lars Koch not guilty. You will find him not guilty because he acted. You will find him not guilty even though he killed 164 people.
Your Honour, Prosecutor, ladies and gentlemen judges: Lars Koch accepts the claims made in the charge. He admits that everything he is accused of happened exactly as it has been described. Yes, the facts are correct. But – and this but is the only thing that matters – it was not murder. The legal conclusions which the prosecution has drawn are wrong.
Presiding Judge Mr Koch, have I understood your Defence Counsel correctly: you accept the external series of events?
Defendant I beg your pardon?
Presiding Judge The facts. Are the facts correct of which you are accused in the charge?
Defendant Yes.
Presiding Judge Good. However, we would like to know more about the sequence of events. We would like to hear more from you about your motives. A blanket confession is insufficient.
Are you prepared to answer the questio
ns of the court?
Defence Counsel My client will make no further statement at this point.
Presiding Judge What about later?
Defence Counsel We plan to do so, yes.
Presiding Judge Very well, as you wish, Counsel. Then let us begin hearing the evidence.
Sergeant, could you please see whether the witness Lauterbach has arrived?
Guard exits.
Guard (calling outside) Mr Christian Lauterbach …
Presiding Judge Prosecutor, Counsel, as you can see from the list, I have only called this one witness. Because the defendant has already admitted the deed in the preliminary proceedings, it seemed to me that we might dispense with any further witnesses. Of course we can add to the list if you consider this necessary once you’ve heard Mr Lauterbach’s testimony. There will be no need for any formal motions. I will take a generous view of your proposals.
Defence Counsel That would be a first.
Presiding Judge What?
Defence Counsel You being generous.
Presiding Judge Excuse me?
Defence Counsel My client has been in custody for seven months. You could have released him: you know he’s not a flight risk. You really can’t talk about being generous.
Presiding Judge I can’t release someone who’s accused of murdering 164 people.
Defence Counsel You could – you just don’t want to …
State Prosecutor Gentlemen, please.
Defence Counsel This isn’t about saying please.
Presiding Judge You’re being rude, Mr Biegler.
Defence Counsel It’s not about manners either. Being a defence lawyer is not a popularity contest.
The Guard and Lauterbach enter. Lauterbach walks to the witness’s chair, which is pointed out to him by the Presiding Judge. He sits down.
Terror Page 1
