R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 1)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY,LORD LLOYD OF BERWICK,LORD NICHOLLS,LORD STEYN,LORD HOFFMANN |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] UKHL J1125-1 |
| Date | 25 November 1998 |
| Court | House of Lords |
And Others
(On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)
And Another
And Others
(On Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)
[1998] UKHL J1125-1
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Steyn
Lord Hoffmann
HOUSE OF LORDS
My Lords,
The respondent to this appeal is alleged to have committed or to have been responsible for the commission of the most serious of crimes–genocide, murder on a large scale, torture, the taking of hostages. In the course of 1998, eleven criminal suits have been brought against him in Chile in respect of such crimes. Proceedings have also now been brought in a Spanish court. The Spanish Court has, however, held that it has jurisdiction to try him. In the latter proceedings, none of these specific crimes is said to have been committed by the respondent himself.
If the question for your Lordships on the appeal were whether these allegations should be investigated by a Criminal Court in Chile or by an international tribunal, the answer, subject to the terms of any amnesty, would surely be yes. But that is not the question and it is necessary to remind oneself throughout that it is not the question. Your Lordships are not being asked to decide whether proceedings should be brought against the respondent, even whether he should in the end be extradited to another country (that is a question for the Secretary of State) let alone whether he in particular is guilty of the commission or responsible for the commission of these crimes. The sole question is whether he is entitled to immunity as a former Head of State from arrest and extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom in respect of acts alleged to have been committed whilst he was Head of State.
The Proceedings
The proceedings have arisen in this way. On 16 October 1998 Mr. Nicholas Evans, a Metropolitan Magistrate, issued a provisional warrant for the arrest of the respondent pursuant to section 8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989 on the basis that there was evidence that he was accused that:
"between 11 September 1973 and 31 December 1983 within the jurisdiction of the Fifth Central Magistrate of the National Court of Madrid did murder Spanish citizens in Chile within the jurisdiction of the Government of Spain."
A second warrant was issued by Mr. Ronald Bartle, a Metropolitan Magistrate, on 22 October 1998 on the application of the Spanish Government, but without the respondent being heard, despite a written request that he should be heard to oppose the application. That warrant was issued on the basis that there was evidence that he was accused:
"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 within the jurisdiction of the Government of Spain."
Particulars of other alleged offences were set out, namely:
(i)between 1 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;
(ii)Between 1 January 1982 and 31 January 1992: (a) he detained; (b) he 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;
(iii)Between January 1976 and December 1992, conspired together with persons unknown to commit murder in a Convention country.
It seems, however, that there are alleged at present to have been only one or two cases of torture between 1 January 1988 and 11 March 1990.
The respondent was arrested on that warrant on 23 October.
On the same day as the second warrant was issued, and following an application to the Home Secretary to cancel the warrant pursuant to section 8(4) of the Extradition Act 1989, solicitors for the respondent issued a summons applying for an order of Habeas Corpus. Mr. Michael Caplan, a partner in the firm of solicitors, deposed that the plaintiff was in hospital under medication following major surgery and that he claimed privilege and immunity from arrest on two grounds. The first was that, as stated by the Ambassador of Chile to the Court of St. James's, the respondent was "President of the Government Junta of Chile" according to Decree No. 1, dated 11 September 1973 from 11 September 1973 until 26 June 1974 and "Head of State of the Republic of Chile" from 26 June 1974 until 11 March 1990 pursuant to Decree Law No. 527, dated 26 June 1974, confirmed by Decree Law No. 806, dated 17 December 1974, and subsequently by the 14th Transitory Provision of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile 1980. The second ground was that the respondent was not and had not been a subject of Spain and accordingly no extradition crime had been identified.
An application was also made on 22 October for leave to apply for judicial review to quash the first warrant of 16 October and to direct the Home Secretary to cancel the warrant. On 26 October a further application was made for Habeas Corpus and judicial review of the second warrant. The grounds put forward were (in addition to the claim for immunity up to 1990) that all the charges specified offences contrary to English statutory provisions which were not in force when the acts were done. As to the fifth charge of murder in a Convention country, it was objected that this charged murder in Chile (not a Convention country) by someone not a Spanish national or a national of a Convention country. Objection was also taken to the issue of a second provisional warrant when the first was treated as being valid.
These applications were heard by the Divisional Court on 26 and 27 October. On 28 October leave was given to the respondent to move for certiorari and the decision to issue the provisional warrant of 16 October was quashed. The Magistrate's decision of 22 October to issue a provisional warrant was also quashed, but the quashing of the second warrant was stayed pending an appeal to your Lordships' House for which leave was given on an undertaking that the Commissioner of Police and the Government of Spain would lodge a petition to the House on 2 November 1998. It was ordered that the applicant was not to be released from custody other than on bail, which was granted subsequently. No order was made on the application for Habeas Corpus, save to grant leave to appeal and as to costs.
The Divisional Court certified:
"that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the Court's decision, namely the proper interpretation and scope of the immunity enjoyed by a former Head of State from arrest and extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom in respect of acts committed when he was Head of State"
The matter first came before your Lordships on Wednesday 5 November. Application for leave to intervene was made first by Amnesty International and others representing victims of the alleged activities. Conditional leave was given to these intervenors, subject to the parties showing cause why they should not be heard. It was ordered that submissions should so far as possible be in writing, but that, in view of the very short time available before the hearing, exceptionally leave was given to supplement those by oral submissions, subject to time limits to be fixed. At the hearing no objection was raised to Professor Brownlie, Q.C. on behalf of these intervenors being heard. Leave was also given to other intervenors to apply to put in written submissions, although an application to make oral submissions was refused. Written submissions were received on behalf of these parties. Because of the urgency and the important and difficult questions of international law which appeared to be raised, the Attorney General, at your Lordships request, instructed Mr. David Lloyd Jones as amicus curiae and their Lordships are greatly indebted to him for the assistance he provided in writing and orally at such very short notice. Many cases have been cited by counsel, but I only refer to a small number of them.
At the date of the provisional warrants and of the judgment of the Divisional Court no extradition request had been made by Spain, a party to the European Convention on Extradition, nor accordingly any authority to proceed from the Secretary of State under the Extradition Act 1989.
The Divisional Court held that the first warrant was defective. The offence specified of murder in Chile was clearly not said to be committed in Spain so that section 2(1)(a) of the 1989 Act was not satisfied. Nor was section 2(1)(b) of the Act satisfied since the United Kingdom Courts could only try a defendant for murder outside the United Kingdom if the defendant was a British citizen (section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 as amended). Moreover, section 2(3)(a) was not satisfied, since the accused is not a citizen of Spain and it is not sufficient that the victim was a citizen of Spain. The Home Secretary, however, was held not to have been in breach of his duty by not cancelling the warrants. As for the second provisional warrant, the Divisional Court rejected the respondent's argument that it was unlawful to proceed on the second warrant and that the Magistrate erred in not holding an inter partes hearing. The Court did not rule at that stage on the respondent's argument that the acts alleged did not constitute crimes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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;
... ... others v Al-Dali and others [ 2004 ] EWCACiv 1394 2004 ... was prohibited under international law, no express or implied exception to immunity existed ... R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p t Ugarte [ 2000 ] 1 AC 61 , HL(E) and R v Bow Street ropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3 ) [ 2000 ] 1 AC 147 , HL(E) ... ...
-
National Westminster Bank plc v. Spectrum Plus Ltd. et al., (2005) 338 N.R. 201 (HL)
...Re. Pinochet, Re, [1998] 2 W.L.R. 272; 237 N.R. 201; [1999] 1 All E.R. 577; [2000] 1 A.C. 119 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 70]. Pinochet, Re, [2000] 1 A.C. 61 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 70]. R. v. Brockhill Prison (Governor); Ex parte Evans, [2001] 2 A.C. 19; 258 N.R. 201 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 71......
-
Bizon v. Bizon et al., 2014 ABCA 174
...Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Co. (1953), 88 C.L.R. 100, refd to. [para. 62]. Pinochet, Re, [1998] N.R. Uned. 232; [2000] 1 A.C. 61 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote United States of America v. Sacher (1950), 182 F.2d 416 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para......
-
Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov and Others
...Lord Hope). (3) The act of state doctrine is a rule of domestic (not international) law ( R v Bow Street Magistrate, ex p Pinochet (No.1) [2000] 1 AC 61, 106G per Lord Nicholls). (4) It provides that English courts will not adjudicate upon or call into question legislative or other governme......
-
National litigation and international law: repercussions for Australia's protection of marine resources.
...(2006) 154 FCR 425, 430 (Black CJ and Finkelstein J), citing R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate; Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [2000] 1 AC 61, 107 (Lord (166) HSI v Kyodo (Full Court) (2006) 154 FCR 425, 429-30 (Black CJ and Finkelstein J). (167) Ibid 431. See EPBC Act ss 479(1)(......
-
Pinochet and international human rights litigation.
...Court Decision]. (25.) Divisional Court Decision, 38 I.L.M. at 83 (Lord Bingham). (26.) See Regina v. Bartle, Ex parte Pinochet, [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1456 (H.L.) [hereinafter First Law Lords' (27.) See First Law Lords' Decision, [1998] 3 W.L.R. at 1499-1502 (Lord Nicholls), 1506 (Lord Steyn), 15......
-
Table of Cases
...345 Estate of Jean-Baptiste Caire (France) v. Mexico (1929), 5 R.I.A.A. 516 ... 541, 548 Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 1), [1998] 4 All E.R. 897 (H.L.), rev’g [1998] All E.R. 509 (Div. Ct.) ...................................................... 368 – 69 Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2), [19......
-
Table of cases
...505 R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 1), [1998] 3 WLR 1456 (H.L.) ................................ 498 R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2), [1999] 2 WLR 272 (H.L.) .........