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 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| UK police to be asked to investigate torture claims against Bahraini prince | UK police to be asked to investigate torture claims against Bahraini prince |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Scotland Yard is to be asked to investigate allegations that a Sandhurst-educated Bahraini prince should be prosecuted for torture. | Scotland Yard is to be asked to investigate allegations that a Sandhurst-educated Bahraini prince should be prosecuted for torture. |
| 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 owing to his royal status. | 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 owing to his royal status. |
| 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 Britain. FF alleges that the prince was involved in the torture of detained prisoners during the pro-democracy uprising of 2011. | 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 Britain. FF alleges that the prince was involved in the torture of detained prisoners during the pro-democracy uprising of 2011. |
| 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. | 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. |
| “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.” | “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 of the UK’s economic interests for this regime.” | 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 of the UK’s economic interests 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. | 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. | “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.” | “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.” |
| Deborah Walsh, deputy head of special crime and counter terrorism at the CPS, said: “In line with recent case law on this issue, we can no longer maintain our position that the Prince could have immunity. | |
| “We have always maintained that the issues raised by this judicial review are academic as before the DPP can consent to any application for a private arrest warrant, there needs to be an investigation by police. The likelihood of immunity is not considered a bar to prosecution and is a matter that should be considered on a case’s individual facts and merits, after some investigation. | |
| “The Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command is responsible for the investigation of all allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture, and has previously said that it would not undertake an investigation in relation to this matter for a number of reasons; the possibility of immunity was not one. | |
| “The CPS is committed to the prosecution of war crimes and we take our responsibilities under international law very seriously. Whenever the evidence and law allows us to do so, we will vigorously pursue prosecutions through the UK courts. We have a well established War Crimes Community Involvement Panel that consists of law enforcement, NGOs and others which has been cited internationally as an example of good practice. This meets regularly to discuss issues of concern and relevance and helps to improve our collective knowledge and understanding in this field.” |