Publish secret government papers on Profumo affair, demands Andrew Lloyd Webber
COMING at the height of the Cold War and with a cast featuring a cabinet minister, a senior Soviet official and a call girl, it was one of the greatest scandals of the age.
In 1963 the country was stunned by revelations that John Profumo, minister for war, had a liaison with Christine Keeler, who was also seeing Yevgeny Ivanov, a Russian naval attaché.
While Profumo resigned and abandoned public life altogether, Harley Street osteopath Stephen Ward – who had introduced him to Keeler at a party in the grounds of Lord Astor’s Berkshire mansion – was tried at the Old Bailey for living off the earnings of prostitution.
Many then and now consider that Ward – who took his own life after the judge’s summing up but before a guilty verdict was reached – was a scapegoat for the Establishment.
Now Lord Lloyd-webber has demanded that secret government files on the Profumo affair be opened early. Lord Lloyd-webber spoke out after the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) last week ruled that Ward would not have his conviction reviewed by the court of appeal. He believes only the sealed service and police files, not available for public viewing until 2046, can clear Ward’s name. The composer and impresario has long been fascinated by the Profumo affair and in 2014 staged a musical about Ward.
Although it was his biggest flop to date, Lord Lloyd-webber remains committed to the subject matter and his belief in Ward’s innocence. In an open letter he stated: “The Criminal Cases Review Commission has ruled that the conviction of Stephen Ward cannot be referred to the Court of Appeal as there were not sufficient public interest grounds and ‘Ward’s case was a case of its time’. If so, surely now there is no reason for the file on Ward and the Profumo scandal to remain closed?”
The revelation that a minister could have compromised state secrets for the sake of an affair threatened Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government.
However, the CCRC said that it had found no evidence that Ward’s prosecution was politically motivated, although it accepted that if Ward were still alive it could have “been minded to refer the case to the court of appeal”.
In a letter to Ward’s nephew, Michael Ward, the CCRC said prejudicial reporting, flawed direction from the judge and Keeler’s previous perjury could render the conviction unsafe.
But it added that it would not send the osteopath’s 1963 conviction to appeal as it could not find an original transcript of the judge’s summing up, there was no public interest in an appeal after 54 years and it could bring no benefit to Ward so long after his death.