R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON,LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD,LORD HUTTON,LORD SAVILLE OF NEWDIGATE,LORD MILLETT,LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1999 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1999] UKHL J0324-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 24 March 1999 |
And others
Ex Parte Pinochet
And Another and
And Others
Ex Parte Pinochet
(On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)
[1999] UKHL J0324-1
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hutton
Lord Saville of Newdigate
Lord Millett
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
HOUSE OF LORDS
My Lords,
As is well known, this case concerns an attempt by the Government of Spain to extradite Senator Pinochet from this country to stand trial in Spain for crimes committed (primarily in Chile) during the period when Senator Pinochet was head of state in Chile. The interaction between the various legal issues which arise is complex. I will therefore seek, first, to give a short account of the legal principles which are in play in order that my exposition of the facts will be more intelligible.
Outline of the law
In general, a state only exercises criminal jurisdiction over offences which occur within its geographical boundaries. If a person who is alleged to have committed a crime in Spain is found in the United Kingdom, Spain can apply to the United Kingdom to extradite him to Spain. The power to extradite from the United Kingdom for an "extradition crime" is now contained in the Extradition Act 1989. That Act defines what constitutes an "extradition crime". For the purposes of the present case, the most important requirement is that the conduct complained of must constitute a crime under the law both of Spain and of the United Kingdom. This is known as the double criminality rule.
Since the Nazi atrocities and the Nuremberg trials, international law has recognised a number of offences as being international crimes. Individual states have taken jurisdiction to try some international crimes even in cases where such crimes were not committed within the geographical boundaries of such states. The most important of such international crimes for present purposes is torture which is regulated by the International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984. The obligations placed on the United Kingdom by that Convention (and on the other 110 or more signatory states who have adopted the Convention) were incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom by section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That Act came into force on 29 September 1988. Section 134 created a new crime under United Kingdom law, the crime of torture. As required by the Torture Convention "all" torture wherever committed world-wide was made criminal under United Kingdom law and triable in the United Kingdom. No one has suggested that before section 134 came into effect torture committed outside the United Kingdom was a crime under United Kingdom law. Nor is it suggested that section 134 was retrospective so as to make torture committed outside the United Kingdom before 29 September 1988 a United Kingdom crime. Since torture outside the United Kingdom was not a crime under U.K. law until 29 September 1988, the principle of double criminality which requires an Act to be a crime under both the law of Spain and of the United Kingdom cannot be satisfied in relation to conduct before that date if the principle of double criminality requires the conduct to be criminal under United Kingdom law at the date it was committed. If, on the other hand, the double criminality rule only requires the conduct to be criminal under U.K. law at the date of extradition the rule was satisfied in relation to all torture alleged against Senator Pinochet whether it took place before or after 1988. The Spanish courts have held that they have jurisdiction over all the crimes alleged.
In these circumstances, the first question that has to be answered is whether or not the definition of an "extradition crime" in the Act of 1989 requires the conduct to be criminal under U.K. law at the date of commission or only at the date of extradition.
This question, although raised, was not decided in the Divisional Court. At the first hearing in this House it was apparently conceded that all the matters charged against Senator Pinochet were extradition crimes. It was only during the hearing before your Lordships that the importance of the point became fully apparent. As will appear, in my view only a limited number of the charges relied upon to extradite Senator Pinochet constitute extradition crimes since most of the conduct relied upon occurred long before 1988. In particular, I do not consider that torture committed outside the United Kingdom before 29 September 1988 was a crime under U.K. law. It follows that the main question discussed at the earlier stages of this case–is a former head of state entitled to sovereign immunity from arrest or prosecution in the U.K. for acts of torture–applies to far fewer charges. But the question of state immunity remains a point of crucial importance since, in my view, there is certain conduct of Senator Pinochet (albeit a small amount) which does constitute an extradition crime and would enable the Home Secretary (if he thought fit) to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain unless he is entitled to state immunity. Accordingly, having identified which of the crimes alleged is an extradition crime, I will then go on to consider whether Senator Pinochet is entitled to immunity in respect of those crimes. But first I must state shortly the relevant facts.
The facts
On 11 September 1973 a right-wing coup evicted the left-wing regime of President Allende. The coup was led by a military junta, of whom Senator (then General) Pinochet was the leader. At some stage he became head of state. The Pinochet regime remained in power until 11 March 1990 when Senator Pinochet resigned.
There is no real dispute that during the period of the Senator Pinochet regime appalling acts of barbarism were committed in Chile and elsewhere in the world: torture, murder and the unexplained disappearance of individuals, all on a large scale. Although it is not alleged that Senator Pinochet himself committed any of those acts, it is alleged that they were done in pursuance of a conspiracy to which he was a party, at his instigation and with his knowledge. He denies these allegations. None of the conduct alleged was committed by or against citizens of the United Kingdom or in the United Kingdom.
In 1998 Senator Pinochet came to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. The judicial authorities in Spain sought to extradite him in order to stand trial in Spain on a large number of charges. Some of those charges had links with Spain. But most of the charges had no connection with Spain. The background to the case is that to those of left-wing political convictions Senator Pinochet is seen as an arch-devil: to those of right-wing persuasions he is seen as the saviour of Chile. It may well be thought that the trial of Senator Pinochet in Spain for offences all of which related to the state of Chile and most of which occurred in Chile is not calculated to achieve the best justice. But I cannot emphasise too strongly that that is no concern of your Lordships. Although others perceive our task as being to choose between the two sides on the grounds of personal preference or political inclination, that is an entire misconception. Our job is to decide two questions of law: are there any extradition crimes and, if so, is Senator Pinochet immune from trial for committing those crimes. If, as a matter of law, there are no extradition crimes or he is entitled to immunity in relation to whichever crimes there are, then there is no legal right to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain or, indeed, to stand in the way of his return to Chile. If, on the other hand, there are extradition crimes in relation to which Senator Pinochet is not entitled to state immunity then it will be open to the Home Secretary to extradite him. The task of this House is only to decide those points of law.
On 16 October 1998 an international warrant for the arrest of Senator Pinochet was issued in Spain. On the same day, a magistrate in London issued a provisional warrant ("the first warrant") under section 8 of the Extradition Act 1989. He was arrested in a London hospital on 17 October 1998. On 18 October the Spanish authorities issued a second international warrant. A further provisional warrant ("the second warrant") was issued by the magistrate at Bow Street Magistrates Court on 22 October 1998 accusing Senator Pinochet of:
"(1) Between 1 January 1988 and December 1992 being a public official intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties;
(2) Between the first day of January 1988 and 31 December 1992 being a public official, conspired with persons unknown to intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties;
(3) Between the first day of January 1982 and 31 January 1992 he detained other persons (the hostages) and in order to compel such persons to do or to abstain from doing any act threatened to kill, injure or continue to detain the hostages;
(4) Between the first day of January 1982 and 31 January 1992 conspired with persons unknown to detain other persons (the hostages) and in order to compel such persons to do or to abstain from doing any act, threatened to kill, injure or continue to detain the hostages;
(5) Between January 1976 and December 1992 conspired together with persons unknown to commit murder in a Convention country."
Senator Pinochet started proceedings for habeas corpus and for leave to move for judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aziz v Aziz and Others, Sultan of Brunei intervening
...to any such sovereign or head of State in his public capacity.” 50 In the course of the proceedings in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.3) [2000] 1 AC 147 it emerged that what became section 20 originally related to a sovereign or head of stat......
-
Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and another (Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and another intervening); Mitchell v Al-Dali;
...House of Lords in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3)TLRELR (The Times March 25, 1999; (2000) 1 AC 147) that a state could not assert immunity ratione materiae in relation to a criminal prosecution for torture in as much as torture was a breac......
-
The High Commissioner for Pakistan in the United Kingdom v Prince Mukkaram Jah, His Exalted Highness the 8th Nizam of Hyderabad and Others (Defendants/Interpleader Claimants) National Westminster Bank Plc (Defendant/Stakeholder)
...doctrines of sovereign immunity and act of state. Thus, as Lord Millett explained in R v Bow Street Magistrates, Ex p. Pinochet (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147 at 269H: "As I understand the difference between them, state immunity is a creature of international law and operates as a plea in bar to t......
-
Yukos Capital S.a.r.L (a company incorporated in the Luxembourg) v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company (a company incorporated in the Russian Federation)
...connection Yukos Capital relied upon the general statement of the principle set out by Lord Phillips In R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3) [2000] 1 AC 147 at 286: … it is contrary to international law for one state to adjudicate upon the intern......
-
Supreme Court Of Canada Case In Depth: Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5.
...Sisterhood in Toronto, Ontario. Footnotes 1 R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), 2000 1 A.C. 147 (H.L.), at p. 2 R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18. 3 Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya, 2020 S.C.C. 5 at paras. 20-21. 4 Ibid at para. 15. 5 Ibid at paras. 1-2......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...F 2d 699 at 717 (9th Cir, 1992)) and the UK (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3)[2000] 1 AC 147 at 198; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom[2001] ECHR 761 at [61]), as well as from international criminal tribunals (Prosecutor v Anto Furund�ija IT-95–......
-
Autumn of the patriarch: the Pinochet extradition debacle and beyond--human rights clauses compared to traditional derivative protections such as double criminality.
...Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty International and others intervening) (No. 3), 2 Eng. Rep. 97, 170 (H.L. 1999), [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827 (Lord Millett, stating: "[The classical theory of international law] taught that states were the only actors on the international plane; the righ......
-
Emergency Powers and Terrorism
...of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). 284 See generally Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), [2000] 1 AC 147, [1999] 2 All ER 97 (House of Lords 285 Public Comm. Against Torture in Isr. et al. v. The State of Isr. and the Gen. Security Service, HCJ 510......
-
Pinochet and international human rights litigation.
...approach to civil human rights litigation that we have suggested. (1.) See Regina v. Bow Street Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet, [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827 (H.L.) [hereinafter Second Law Lords' Decision]. Judicial appeals to the House of Lords are heard by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, or "Law Lo......