FF v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Laws,Mr Justice Cranston |
| Judgment Date | 07 October 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3419 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/11360/2012 |
| Date | 07 October 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 3419 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Laws
Mr Justice Cranston
CO/11360/2012
Mr Tom Hickman (instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Guglielmo Verdirame (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
By order made by me last week, this is a directions hearing though in fact it has proved possible to resolve the whole proceedings.
A short narrative of the background to the case may be found at paragraphs 2 to 8 of a judgment delivered by myself (sitting in this Court with Mr Justice Wilkie) at an earlier directions hearing on 19 June 2013:
"2 The claim concerns events arising out of political protests in Bahrain in February and March 2011. The claimant, who took part, says he was badly beaten and injured by police and held without charge. He was given a prison sentence. However, these proceedings are directed not to what befell the claimant but to allegations that Prince Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the son of the King of Bahrain, was directly involved in the torture of three individuals in prison in Bahrain.
3 On 5 July 2012 a dossier prepared by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights at Berlin, the ECCHR, which appears as an interested party, was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It contained evidence said to implicate Prince Nasser in the torture of detained prisoners in April 2011.
4 Arrest and prosecution of the prince was sought. The dossier was passed to the War Crimes team of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, S015. On 3 August 2012 the CPS wrote to the claimant's solicitors indicating their view that Prince Nasser would enjoy immunity under section 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978 as a member of the Bahraini royal household, and/or functional immunity pursuant to section 1 of the 1978 Act in relation to any conduct of his in his role as Commander of the Royal Guard.
5 Following a request for review of that decision, the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism division indicated on 4 September 2012 their agreement that Prince Nasser did not enjoy immunity under section 20(1)(b) of the 1978 Act, as his household was independent of that of the King of Bahrain. But they maintained the view that it was likely that he would enjoy functional immunity ratione materiae as Commander of the Royal Guard of Bahrain.
6 Further correspondence followed. On 2 October 2012, Deborah Walsh, Deputy Head of the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism division set out a full statement of reasons adhering to the earlier view that had been formed. Judicial review papers were lodged on 23 October 2012 seeking to challenge the CPS position as erroneous in law.
7 The claimant's case is very crisply summarised at paragraph 15 of the judicial review grounds as follows:
'1 Section 1 of the 1978 Act does not apply to criminal proceedings.
2 Following the judgments of the House of Lords in R v Bow Street Magistrate and Ors, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (3) [2001] 1 AC 147, and Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Anor [2006] UKHL 26, [2007] 1 AC 270, it is clear that public officials of foreign states have no immunity from criminal process in relation to the international crime of torture based on immunity ratione materiae.
3 Prince Nasser bin Hamad does not have immunity ratione personae because the status of his current position does not attract immunity.'
8 It is said that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R FF v Director of Legal Aid Casework
...Prince indicated that he would not be participating in the proceedings. Subsequent events are recorded in the judgment of Laws LJ ( [2014] EWHC 3419 (Admin)), which was delivered at a hearing held on 7 October 2014, at [3]: “The case was at length fixed for hearing on 23 October 2013 but a......