The Pinochet Case No. 3

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Hazel Fox
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords

The decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, given on 24 March 1999,1 confirms, by the impressive vote of 6 to 1, the earlier majority ruling that a former head of state enjoys no immunity in extradition or criminal proceedings brought in the United Kingdom in respect of the international crime of torture.

Judicial Jurisdiction and Abuse of Process

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 489-496
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
English Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords

British cases used to be widely relied upon to show that courts were entitled to hear criminal proceedings against defendants brought before them without having to enquire into the process by which custody over them had been obtained: and specifically, that there was no bar to proceeding where the allegation was made that custody had been obtained in breach of international law.1 The consistency of the doctrine was breached by Mackeson2 when the English court refused to hear the case against a defendant who, it accepted, had been brought to England by a collusive process between the English and Zimbabwean authorities, which arguably breached both national laws, even if it did not involve a breach of international law. While the previous orthodoxy soon reasserted itself in Driver,3 the edifice of authority was substantially undermined in Bennett4 when the House of Lords acceded to the claim of the applicant that proceedings against him would be an abuse of process, given the circumstances in which his presence in the United Kingdom had been achieved. Outside the United Kingdom, the practice in other States continued in different directions, sometimes confirming the old position of male captus, bene detentus,5 sometimes the reverse.6

scholarly journals The Pinochet Judgement: New Accountability for Old Dictators

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
Sarah L Murphy
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Main Components ◽  
Heads Of State

This article analyses the groundbreaking 1999 judgment of the House of Lords on the question of the extradition of Pinochet from the United Kingdom to Spain for crimes committed during his time as Head of State of Chile. It examines the two main components of the judgment:  that Pinochet's status as former Head of State of Chile did not allow him to benefit from sovereign immunity for acts of torture committed during his reign; and that he could be extradited to Spain for acts of torture committed after 1989, when the United Kingdom codified its obligations under the Torture Convention.  It supports the conclusion that the laws against torture override the immunity of former Heads of State, and suggests that the reasoning could be extended to apply to other crimes against humanity, and where the accused is an incumbent Head of State.  On the question of extradition, it argues that the Law Lords had several avenues open under which Pinochet could have been extradited to face all counts of torture. It concludes with an analysis of the New Zealand legislation and case law on sovereign immunity, the prosecution of crimes against humanity, and extradition, and suggests several law reforms to bring New Zealand legislation in line with evolving international obligations to prosecute or extradite the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. 

I. The Future of Former Head of State Immunity after ex Parte Pinochet

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
J. Craig Barker
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Considerable Reduction ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Initial Impression ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Future

While lacking the raw excitement of the live “penalty shoot-out” that was the announcement of the decision of the House of Lords in Reg. v. Bow Street Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet,1 the initial impression of the decision in Reg. v. Bow Street Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No. 3)2 was of a solid majority support for the position that Pinochet was not entitled to immunity in the United Kingdom in respect of the criminal acts he is alleged to have committed. Even as Lord Browne-Wilkinson attempted to explain the intricacies of the decision, the matter of immunity appeared settled and of secondary consideration to the “new” requirement of double criminality which alone, it seemed, had resulted in the considerable reduction in the list of crimes for which Pinochet could be extradited to Spain. Closer examination of the reasoning of their Lordships, however, quickly dispels that impression and reveals a range of opinions across a wide spectrum. What agreement there was between their Lordships on the matter of Pinochet's immunity from jurisdiction is diverse and often contradictory. In particular, the Lordships who formed the majority were equally divided on the question as to whether Pinochet was acting within his official capacity when carrying out the acts of which he is accused. Given that immunity rationae materiae appears to be available only in respect of official acts, it is difficult to see how the six could have agreed on the fact that Pinochet was not entitled to such immunity. Indeed, given the fact that Lord Goff (dissenting) was of the opinion that the alleged acts were performed in the course of Pinochet's functions as head of state, there was in fact a majority in favour of the prima facie existence of immunity rationae materiae.

The First Pinochet Case: Immunity of a Former Head of State

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Hazel Fox
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Reversal Of Fortune

The case of Pinochet has aroused enormous interest, both political and legal. The spectacle of the General, whose regime sent so many to their deaths, himself under arrest and standing trial has stirred the hopes of the oppressed. His reversal of fortune, loss of liberty with a policeman, on the door, has been heralded by organisations for the protection of human rights as one small step on the long road to justice. For lawyers generally, the House of Lords' majority decision of 1998 that General Pinochet enjoyed no immunity signalled a shift from a State-centred order of things.1 It suggested that the process of restriction of State immunity, so effectively begun with the removal of commercial transactions from its protection, might now extend some way into the field of criminal proceedings. And it further posed the intriguing question whether an act categorised as within the exercise of sovereign power, so as to relieve the individual official of liability in civil proceedings, may at the same time, as well as subsequent to his retirement, attract parallel personal criminal liability.

scholarly journals BLACK V. CHRÉTIEN AND THE CONTROL OF THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1, 2 & 3) ◽  
pp. 2002
Author(s):  
Noel Cox
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Model ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords

Conrad Black, a prominent publisher and businessman in both Canada and the United Kingdom, submitted his name for one of the peerages to be created for the new-model House of Lords following the House of Lords Act 1999.1 The rights and duties of peers depend entirely upon custom.2 The principal legal distinction of British peers is — or was — their right to sit and vote in Parliament.3 Not all peers however were Lords of Parliament (principally the Irish peers not also possessing another peerage entitling them to a seat), and some Lords of Parliament, the bishops, are not peers.4 Essentially, Black was seeking, and had been promised, a seat in the upper house of the British Parliament.

scholarly journals Control Over Personal Information in the Database Era

2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 322-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Andrejevic
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
The State ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords

In February 2009 the House of Lords Constitutional Committee in the United Kingdom published the report Surveillance: Citizens and the State. Some have hailed this as a landmark document. The following is one of four commentaries that the editors of Surveillance & Society solicited in response to the report.

scholarly journals Drivers for Internationalization in Georgian Higher Education

2020 ◽  
pp. 91-104
Author(s):  
Pusa Nastase
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Web Sites ◽  
Student Mobility ◽  
Governmental Agencies ◽  
Export Strategy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Almost Everywhere ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Institutional Expansion

Abstract Internationalization of higher education has been on the rise almost everywhere in Europe for the past two decades, from countries like the United Kingdom that have put higher education at the heart of their export strategy (An overview of the higher education exports and their value to the United Kingdom economy is provided by the debate on 19 July 2018 in the House of Lords available at https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2018-0079/.) to countries in Eastern Europe which are relatively active in student mobility but less internationalized in other areas (faculty profiles, research outputs, institutional expansion abroad). However, as a result of many factors, including an unprecedented number of European students benefitting from free and quality higher education available in other countries, and the strengthening of economic nationalism, we see a refocus in internationalization in many Western countries. This study investigates the drivers of internationalization in Georgian universities. Data was collected through interviews with Georgian ministry officials, heads of governmental agencies, rectors and faculty from Georgian universities in addition to documents and web sites analysis. This study presents an insight into national, institutional and individual drivers for internationalization in Georgia and the challenges experienced.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
Editorial Decisions

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind [1991] UKHL 4, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State could restrict the editorial decisions of broadcasters as regards the way in which messages from spokespersons for proscribed organizations were broadcast. The United Kingdom was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) when the case was heard, but the case also predates the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is discussion of the legal position of the ECHR under the common law in the United Kingdom, and the concept of proportionality in United Kingdom’s domestic jurisprudence. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Isle of Man

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Rimmer
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Isle Of Man ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Formed Part

The Isle of Man is a British Crown possession. It had been subject to Norwegian, then competing claims of Scottish and English suzerainty. The English asserted a claim to its possession. English monarchs made successive grants of the Island to individuals. Ultimately, it was granted to Sir John Stanley, subject to English suzerainty. In 1765, by the Act of Revestment, the Island was transferred (with the Lordship) to the British Crown. The British monarch is therefore head of state as the Lord of Man. The Island has never formed part of the metropolitan territories of the United Kingdom, however.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document