UK ruling on Bahraini prince clears way for torture inquiry

Scotland Yard is to be asked to investigate allegations that a 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 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.

No immunity

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.”

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.

“This has been an ill-targeted, politically motivated and opportunistic attempt to misuse the British legal system. ” – (Guardian service)