Why did the ECtHR grant the Saudis immunity from legal action in UK courts in a torture case? Geoffrey Bindman QC reports
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been accused of undue interference with UK domestic policies. A contrary criticism—undue subservience to unsatisfactory decisions of UK courts—has more substance. The recent decision of the Fourth Chamber of the ECtHR in Jones and others v United Kingdom [2014] ECHR 32 is a great disappointment.
On 14 January by a majority of six judges to one, the Fourth Chamber denied a remedy to four British expatriates tortured and detained for up to three years in Saudi Arabia. Sandy Mitchell, Bill Sampson (whose recent premature death was hastened by his ill-treatment), and Les Walker were falsely accused of involvement in the murder of another British expatriate. Ron Jones was falsely accused of a bombing, and was tortured and detained for 67 days. The court accepted the argument of the UK government that immunity of the Saudi state and its officials from legal action in UK courts, which had been upheld by the
