Kapelis- The Hatmaker

by Andreas Kappa

  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

  THE TRIAL IN STRASBOURG, 3 MARCH 1997

  Andrew, Hans, and Andreas laughed at the fear of Andreas boarding the plane when the old man said “can this piece of metal really fly?”

  They then flew to Strasbourg. To everyone’s surprise, Andreas loved the trip.

  He could not believe how high and fast they were travelling. He was fascinated by the whole adventure and how the airplane did not crash. Andreas could see the tops of the mountains in Europe covered in snow.

  He also jested, ‘What nice girls there are on this flight with their uniforms. They feed us, give us drinks, smile at us, and don’t ask for a euro.’

  Once they landed in Strasbourg, they took a taxi to the hotel. Again, the old man marvelled at the buildings, the cars, and the order this city had with huge roads.

  They entered the hotel on the Friday evening before the hearing on Monday. They spent quiet time together, gathering their thoughts, making last-minute preparations, and having some enjoyable meals together.

  The night before the hearing, Andreas said to Andrew, ‘Good luck, my grandson, and remember, “he who has inflicted the wounds must now provide the cure.”’

  That saying was the last thought Andrew took with him to bed the night before the trial.

  The next day, Hans, Andreas, and Andrew had breakfast and prepared their bags to take the documents to the court. The matter was listed for 10 a.m.

  At 10 a.m., all the lawyers and parties had assembled in the court, and counsel had taken their places at the bar table.

  Behind the king’s counsel and the state of Greece’s counsel were a team each of attorneys taking notes.

  Behind Andreas were Hans, taking notes, and his grandfather Andreas, listening through his interpreting device (which was supplied by the court) to what was being said.

  The former king was not in the court and had not to be seen elsewhere.

  There were three loud knocks on the door leading to the judge’s chambers, and the judge took her place high on the bench as all stood to attention.

  ‘Call the matter,’ she said to her tipstaff, looking down at the counsel.

  The tipstaff said, ‘Andreas Kapelis against the former king of Greece, Constantine II, and the Republic of Greece,’ he announced.

  ‘Who appears for the parties?’ she demanded.

  The appearances were Andrew Kape for the complainant; Richard Wagstaff, QC, leading Robert Bingham, QC, leading two junior counsel by the surnames of Richards and McDougall for the first respondent (the former king); David Cox, QC, leading Paul Lever, QC, leading two junior counsel by the surnames of Williams and Johnson for the second respondent (the Republic of Greece).

  The judge asked if the parties were ready to proceed, and all agreed.

  The first task was to empanel the jury of twelve. The language agreed upon for the court was English.

  Each person in the panel of potential jurors was asked if he or she could understand English; otherwise, it was an immediate disqualification. The judge asked the potential jurors to raise their hands if they did not understand what was being said in English or struggling to comprehend the language and whether they knew any of the parties or counsel in the proceedings.

  Interpreters were present to assist the jurors with limited command of the English language.

  Some put up their hands and were disqualified. The majority remained.

  The panel of jurors was indeed from all the European countries except for Greece, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany to avoid any conflict of interests or perceived conflict.

  Each counsel had a right to strike out ten jurors before they were sworn in as a jury member from a panel list of fifty jurors.

  The procedure commenced, and both counsel for the king and for the state of Greece exhausted their pre-emptive rights to strike out ten potential jurors.

  Andrew reached over to Andreas and said, ‘Do you want anyone in particular struck out?’

  Andreas said, ‘Do not strike out anyone as they are called. We will leave it to fate. I don’t like treating people like that, as if it is some God-given right of a pompous lawyer to say that a person is not good enough to be a juror. The other jurors will have witnessed such conduct by the other lawyers, and I don’t believe that they would approve.’

  Andrew thought that was a very wise and wily tactic by the old man. It appeared to Andrew, that the judge also seemed to favour that approach. The jury of twelve was now empanelled and sworn in. It was now 3 p.m., with the court rising at 4 p.m.

  The judge said, ‘This has been a long day, and I see the time is after 3 p.m. We will adjourn early today to give everyone a break, and you can open your case to the jury tomorrow, Mr Kape.’

  Andrew said, ‘Thank you, Your Honour.’

  The jury went back into the jury room with a few jurors pausing to look at Andreas.

  That night, Andrew went over his papers again in silence in his room and without talking to anyone.

  The next day, the parties were at the bar table at 9:45 a.m.

  Andrew noticed on his chair a folded piece of white paper. He opened it up and saw a handwritten note that simple said: ‘King of Greece, 12 million euros, and Republic of Greece, 6 million euros.’

  Andrew immediately told the associate if a message could be sent to the judge urgently for a later start at, say, ten thirty, as the respondents had conveyed a message to him.

  The message was sent to the judge, and the judge knew immediately that a settlement offer had been put. The cryptic message sent to her by Andrew was obvious as she had also been counsel for many years before being judge. She would not find out the amount until the matter settled, if it settled at all.

  Andrew took his grandfather and Hans to the conference room outside the courtroom. Andrew put the collective offer of 18 million euros to his grandfather.

  Andreas said, ‘That is great, we are moving up. Not yet, grandson. There is much more where that came from.’ Andreas rejected the offer.

  Andrew went back into the courtroom, which was empty except for the counsel, and simply said to his opponents, ‘The offers are rejected. Let’s proceed to trial.’

  The counsel for both respondents were peeved and frustrated, and both leading counsel said, ‘Then let us proceed.’

  The judge knew the settlement offer had been rejected. She called in the jury panel, who was made up of four women and eight men ranging from a twenty-four-year-old man to a seventy-year-old woman from a mix of nationalities.

  The judge asked her associate to provide each member of the jury with a large writing pad, highlighters and pens of different colours.

  The judge addressed the jury and told them briefly what the case was about on the pleadings, and their duties as jurors. Any matters of law determined by her must be followed by them, and matters of fact can only be determined by them.

  The judge said to the jurors that, if their verdict on blame was in favour of the complainant, they would need to assess compensation and damages in either Greek drachmas or the new currency of euros being introduced into the European Union. She also said that is was a common law trial with evidence being called by either side in oral form. The witnesses would be cross-examined, and there was a right to call evidence in reply.

  Both parties would provide an opening address to outline their cases and a closing address to finish their cases. As the presiding judge, she told the jurors that she would then provide a digest of the evidence and each party’s position.

  The jury would then be provided with questions to be answered as agreed by the parties and with her concurrence. The judge repeated that they would then be asked to retire and answer the questions put to them on liability or blame, if any, and then provide a figure for compensation.

  The jury was quite focused on what the judge had said to them, and
they appeared genuinely attentive to the explanation provided to them about their duty as jurors in the trial.

  Having finished what she had to say to the jury, the judge turned to Andrew and said, ‘Could you now please open your case to the jury, Mr Kape?’

  Andrew said, ‘May it please the court, I will now open. Citizens of Europe and members of the jury, what I am about to tell you is not fiction, although not even the best writer of fiction could do it justice. It is a story—the story of a man’s life, the stories within the story of the old man with the greying hair and the walking stick sitting on the seat behind the advocates in the matter.

  ‘It needs to be written in the decision you will ultimately have to make about the facts. You, and only you, can write those facts after you hear all the evidence. The judge cannot determine those facts because you have been called to do so. It is your duty and you are the court of facts.’

  At this point, it was clear that both the judge and jury wanted to hear these facts and were attentive.

  Andrew continued, ‘This man was born in 1900, the turn of the century, a time of hope and optimism for the young Republic of Greece after 400 years of Turkish occupation. He is a man that, as he grew into a young man, was bright and became educated. He finished his law degree and arts degree in philosophy. He was a man that served his country as a sergeant in the army in World War I before he entered university. You will hear evidence from him in relation to his early life and the war, the Great War. He was a man with legitimate expectations for his future in Greece.’

  Andrew went on to describe these facts with pauses, cadence, and skilful deportment. He did not rush nor forget any relevant fact of the old man’s early life when he was facing the jury from his lectern.

  He had the seat closest to the jury so all eyes were on him. Likewise, Andrew slowly made eye contact with each and every juror for any clue as to whether they were listening to the story or not and to see their reaction to his opening address.

  Andrew then slowly went through one fact after another and paused to outline the critical facts of Andreas’s early life and his time at university.

  He continued, ‘Members of the jury, you will hear the word communist quite often in my opening address to you as I weave the facts, but each time that word is used, it will have its place in the timeline of facts and its relevance of how Andreas was deemed a communist and punished for it—unbelievable and indescribable punishment. In fact, the only word that is appropriate is abominable.’

  At this point, Andrew paused for a long time. After he took a very deep breath he then continued, ‘The manipulation of this single word by human beings caused great physical and mental harm during his entire lifetime. It was relentless. You will hear evidence from one of the most eminent psychiatrists in Europe, Professor Meijers, from Germany, who will describe to you at length his diagnosis that Andreas has been suffering from undiagnosed and untreated depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. These conditions are debilitating mental illnesses he suffered throughout his life. The medical evidence is relevant to your deliberations when you are asked to place a monetary sum, an amount of money, to compensate Mr Kapelis for general damages and for his pain and suffering. You are not asked to cure him or wipe away those memories. You can only give him a sum of money. There will, of course, be other factors you must consider when you arrive at the sum.’

  Andrew said to the judge, ‘I note the time, Your Honour, and it is a few minutes to 4 p.m. Should we adjourn until tomorrow, as the jury has been told many facts today?’

  During his opening address, neither counsel for the respondents uttered a word. All they did was to look closely at the reaction of the jurors and take down detailed notes.

  With that, the judge agreed and adjourned the matter.

  The judge ordered that a typed daily transcript being made available to counsel for all the parties.

  As Andrew left the courtroom, he saw the lawyers for the former king and the state of Greece conferring in a large conference room, in deep discussion.

  Andrew, Hans and Andreas went back to the Hilton. At dinner that night, Hans said that Andrew was doing a wonderful job and the opening address was measured.

  As they almost completed their meal, the concierge approached them and said that there was a phone call for Andrew Kape.

  Andrew went to the desk and answered the phone. It was Richard Wagstaff, QC, on the phone.

  Richard said, ‘Old cove, you are presenting your case in a grand fashion. Very well done.’

  Andrew knew from his experience as counsel that what was being said was false praise, disingenuous and tactical connivance.

  Andrew said, ‘Is there something I can do for you?’

  Richard said in a most British upper-class voice, ‘I will be the spokesman for both parties moving forward. I want to know a ballpark figure as to what the old bugger wants so he can go away.’

  Andrew said, ‘I genuinely don’t know. He has never discussed money with me, and he has never placed a sum on what he wants. I am equally in the dark as you are.’

  Richard said, ‘Well, we have mustered up some more money over the last two days, and I am instructed to put to you the sum of 15 million euros from my client and the Greek republic is prepared to contribute 8 million euros to settle the matter, inclusive of your costs. That is a total of 23 million euros.’

  Andrew said, ‘I will relay the details of your offer to my client and get some instructions on your offer. Once I do, I will call you back.’

  Andrew went to the table. Hans and Andreas were having coffee.

  Andrew said, ‘Grandfather, they have just offered twenty-three million euros. Please don’t say no.’

  Andreas said, ‘I am enjoying myself here in this nice hotel. The trial is for eight weeks, and I want to stay. You remember they said at the settlement conferences that there was no more money. Well, they are lying wankers, and now they are worried. I like the jury, and I want them to say that they are guilty. We proceed. Offers rejected.’

  Andrew was ashen-faced.

  Hans was more philosophical. He said to Andrew, ‘I think your grandfather is right. They are liars, and as the trial goes on, my suspicion is that they will offer more money. Let us see.’

  The men went to bed. Andrew did not sleep well.

  The next morning, before the jury came into the court from the jury room, the judge enquired from Andrew how long his opening address would be.

  Andrew advised the court that his address would take no longer than three more days. He would try to make it shorter; however, there were ninety years of a man’s life to tell.

  The judge understood and said, ‘Well, let us proceed. Bring in the jury.’

  Andrew recommenced. ‘You will recall yesterday I was describing the word communist being used against Mr Kapelis. Now I will tell you why.’

  With great skill and care, Andrew then went through the facts relevant to his loss of tenure as a lawyer, his time as a resistance fighter in EAM, and the fight against the Germans. He also told the jury that Andreas had served his country during World War II.

  After the conclusion of that day’s opening, Wagstaff grabbed Andrew by the arm as he was leaving court and asked to speak to him alone. Andrew ushered Hans and Andreas to go back to the hotel as he remained.

  Wagstaff took Andrew into a conference room and began to lecture him about ethics, proper conduct of a counsel to convey offers to his client, and his duty to both the court and his client. It was close to a tirade with his very long fingers being pointed at Andrew and wild gesticulations.

  Andrew remained silent.

  Wagstaff then said that as a very senior counsel, he might be compelled to report his conduct to the United Kingdom Bar Association for failing to properly advise his client on offers of settlement.

  Andrew again remained silent.

 
Finally, Wagstaff said, ‘Have you nothing to say, or are you devoid of your senses?’

  Andrew said, ‘You will, no doubt, also report me for being a communist.’

  With that, Wagstaff walked off, fuming with rage, and slammed the door.

  Andrew then yelled out, ‘If you have another offer, please let me know.’

  Wagstaff was incensed and did not turn around but shook his head.

  On the third day of hearing, Andrew described the events in Greece between 1945 until 1950 during the civil war.

  Andrew’s heart was beating very hard because he knew this was the critical time to put his case to the jury for damages and for exemplary, punitive, and aggravated damages against the former monarch.

  In order to get their undivided attention, he knew that he had to use his skill as an advocate to be theatrical yet factual.

  He then said in his address, ‘This courtroom is governed by justice, the rule of law. No one can interfere with that principle. The judge is bound by that principle sitting high above us. You are bound by the law and so is every counsel you see before you, dressed in our impressive wigs and gowns.

  ‘Assume I was to take off my wig, replace the wig with a crown and become king of Strasbourg, then direct the judge and you as jurors to find the innocent guilty, whether they were guilty or not, because of their political belief. Those who would not be found guilty would be the monarchists. Then the question that will be put to you to answer is, was the king and the state of Greece, in aiding and abetting the king, guilty of several abuses of power and a breach of the law?’

  Andrew at this point removed his wig to scratch his head, showing his brown hair. He then slowly put his wig back on after the pause.

  He went on, ‘Andreas had been appointed a judge together with his friend Kalapaseas, a name you will hear later on for his involvement in these proceedings, but suffice it is to say that Kalapaseas ultimately became the Chief Justice of Greece, and Andreas remained a peasant.

  At this point, the judge stopped writing in her bench book and looked at Andrew and listened more carefully.