This article is from the source 'independent' 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.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/prince-nasser-of-bahrain-stripped-of-uk-diplomatic-immunity-over-torture-allegations-9779815.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Prince Nasser of Bahrain stripped of UK diplomatic immunity over torture allegations Prince Nasser of Bahrain stripped of UK diplomatic immunity, sparking demands for fresh probe into torture allegations
(about 3 hours later)
A Bahraini prince was today stripped of his diplomatic protection from an investigation into allegations that he was involved in torture after prosecutors admitted they had wrongly granted him immunity. Human rights activists have demanded a fresh police investigation into allegations that a Bahraini prince was involved in torture after prosecutors admitted they had wrongly granted him immunity.
Prince Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, who is the son of the King of Bahrain and a frequent visitor to Britain, could  face a fresh inquiry by Scotland Yard into allegations that he beat political prisoners during democracy protests in the wealthy Gulf state in 2011 that left dozens dead or imprisoned. The Crown Prosecution Service ruled two years ago that a complaint against Prince Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, a son of the Gulf state’s king, that he beat prisoners arrested during democracy protests could not be pursued because of his royal status and position as a senior military commander.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had previously insisted that Prince Nasser qualified for immunity from prosecution as a member of the Bahraini royal family and in his personal capacity as commander of the country’s Royal Guard. The prince strongly denies the torture claims and the Bahraini authorities insist there is insufficient evidence against him to sustain an investigation. But the High Court in London was told on Tuesday that prosecutors had abandoned that position, prompting lawyers acting for a Bahraini refugee seeking the prince’s arrest and campaigners to call for Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command to re-consider the case.
But two years after the complaint against him was first brought by a Bahraini refugee now living in Britain, the CPS performed a U-turn in the High Court and admitted that its decision had been wrong. The announcement was made on the day that a judicial review hearing had been due to begin into the claim that the original decision made on behalf of Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders was “erroneous in law”. Prince Nasser, a Sandhurst graduate and keen equestrian who is a regular visitor to Britain, has strongly denied the allegations. The Bahraini government described the proceedings as “politically motivated”, adding that it believed there was insufficient evidence to sustain an investigation.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the complainant, known only as FF, said the ruling should pave the way for a fresh scoping investigation by Scotland Yard into the allegations against the prince. But the CPS said that police had previously decided there were “number of reasons” why an investigation could not be pursued. The CPS described the ruling as “academic” because when police originally considered the case there had been a “number of reasons” why it could not be pursued and the issue of immunity had not been one of them.
Tom Hickman, representing the claimant, known only as FF, told the court: “As far as the claimant is concerned, the DPP’s position represents a long over-due recognition that Prince Nasser does not benefit from immunity for acts of torture in proceedings in the United Kingdom.” Lawyers bringing the case, who argued that the original decision made on behalf of Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders was “erroneous in law”, said the ruling would allow them to present new evidence to police concerning the claims.
The case was brought by a UK-based former detainee, known only as FF, who was arrested during Bahrain’s bloody democracy protests in 2011 and alleged that Prince Nasser directly participated in torture of two political prisoners in April that year.
Prince Nasser Al Khalifa of Bahraini during the Ironman South Africa 2014 competition in Port Elizabeth (Getty) Tom Hickman, representing FF, told the court: “As far as the claimant is concerned, the DPP’s position represents a long overdue recognition that Prince Nasser does not benefit from immunity for acts of torture in proceedings in the United Kingdom.”
He added: “We say that the decision clears the way for an investigation of the prince and consent for an arrest warrant to be sought. There is evidence that will be submitted to the police in due course.”He added: “We say that the decision clears the way for an investigation of the prince and consent for an arrest warrant to be sought. There is evidence that will be submitted to the police in due course.”
Prince Nasser Al Khalifa of Bahraini during the Ironman South Africa 2014 competition in Port Elizabeth (Getty) Torture carried out by a public official anywhere in the world is an offence in Britain under the provisions of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, making it possible to try allegations of maltreatment committed abroad in the English courts. FF, who claims he was beaten and detained without charge, said: “Now the prince has lost his immunity, he will need to consider the risk of investigation, arrest and prosecution when he is travelling outside Bahrain.”
The lifting of immunity from Prince Nasser, a graduate from Sandhurst and a keen equestrian sportsman who regularly visits Britain for events, means he could now be investigated by the War Crimes Unit of the Metropolitan Police. Torture carried out by a public official anywhere in the world is an offence in Britain under the provisions of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, making it possible to try allegations of maltreatment committed abroad in the English courts.
The claim against him alleges that he was “directly involved” in the torture of at least two individuals in prison in Bahrain in April 2011. Britain has close historic links to Bahrain with members of the Al Khalifa ruling family regular visitors to Britain. The Government this year classified the island as a “priority market” for arms sales.
In a statement, the Government of Bahrain claimed the proceedings against the prince were "politically motivated" and said there was an absence of evidence against him which could justify his arrest. Prosecutors insisted that immunity had not been a bar to any prosecution and said an original scoping investigation by the Yard, carried out around the time the prince was in London for the 2012 Olympics, had shown the allegations could not be pursued.
It said it had never sought any sovereign or personal immunity in the English courts and therefore had no view on the CPS ruling. Deborah Walsh, deputy head of the special crime at the CPS, said the Yard had “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 statement said: "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 Bahraini authorities said there had been “an absence of evidence” against the prince and pointed out that it had never sought sovereign immunity over the case.
In a statement, the Bahraini government said: “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.”
A report by an independent commission established by Bahrain’s king found that detainees arrested during the 2011 uprising were subjected to torture or physical abuse and there had been a “culture of impunity” among security officials.
Sue Willman, the solicitor representing FF, said: “The UK has a duty 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.”