This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/07/high-court-quashes-dpp-decision-bahrain-prince-torture

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
High court quashes DPP’s decision over Bahraini prince’s immunity UK police to be asked to investigate torture claims against Bahraini prince
(35 minutes later)
The high court has quashed a decision by the UK’s director of public prosecutions (DPP) that the son of Bahrain’s king is immune from prosecution for alleged torture offences. Scotland Yard is to be asked to investigate allegations that a Bahraini prince should be prosecuted for torture.
Two judges sitting in London made the quashing order with the consent of the DPP, Alison Saunders. The request comes after the high court in London quashed a decision by the director of public prosecutions (DPP) that Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa was immune from legal action due to his royal status.
The case arose after a Bahraini citizen, referred to as FF, sought the arrest of Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa. The case arose after a Bahraini citizen, identified only as FF, sought the arrest of the prince, who is a keen equestrian competitor and a regular visitor to the UK. FF alleges that the prince was involved in the torture of detained prisoners during the pro-democracy uprising of 2011.
FF alleged the prince was involved in the torture of detained prisoners during the pro-democracy uprising of 2011, but was told the prince was immune from prosecution because of his royal status. In a brief court hearing, lawyers for the DPP, Alison Saunders, agreed that the prince was not entitled to immunity from prosecution under the 1978 State Immunity Act.
More details soon … “This clears the way for an investigation of the prince and for consent for an arrest warrant to be sought,” Tom Hickman, the barrister representing FF, told the court. “Further evidence will be submitted to the police in due course.”
After the hearing, Sue Willman, a solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn who represents FF, said: “The UK has a duty under the [United Nations] convention against torture and under its own laws to investigate, arrest and prosecute those who are alleged to have committed acts of torture abroad. They should be applied to all, regardless for this regime.”
Responding to the decision, the government of Bahrain said: “As the British DPP has today affirmed, an arrest would have been improper given the absence of evidence of the conduct alleged. As Bahrain has never sought anonymity or sovereign immunity from the English courts for anyone in respect of this case, it expresses no view on the DPP’s statement that immunity was inappropriate.
“This has been an ill-targeted, politically motivated and opportunistic attempt to misuse the British legal system. The government of Bahrain again categorically denies the allegations against Sheikh Nasser. The government reiterates its firm condemnation of torture and recognises its responsibility to investigate any reasonable allegation. The government remains committed to implementing the wider reforms as recommended by the Independent Commission of Inquiry and welcomes constructive engagement with responsible campaigners in pursuit of that aim.
“Contrary to assertions being made in the wake of today’s hearing, the court order does not open the door to a prosecution. Rather, the CPS said the decision on immunity was academic as it had solid fact-related grounds for the basis on which it determined it could not prosecute Sheikh Nasser. All this was made plain in court today. In short, the situation has not, and will not, change as there is no evidence for the allegations.”