By Jane Croft in London and Simeon Kerr in Dubai
The prosecution service of England and Wales is facing a legal challenge in London over whether the son of Bahrain’s king is immune from prosecution for alleged torture.
A Bahraini citizen who sought the arrest of Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa after lodging allegations that he was involved in the torture of detained prisoners during the pro-democracy uprising of 2011 was told that the prince would be immune from prosecution because of his royal status.
The judicial review proceedings have been brought by a Bahraini citizen, known as FF in the proceedings, who is seeking to challenge the Crown Prosecution Service’s immunity decision as “erroneous in law”.
The Bahrain embassy in London said: “This case questions the technical legal grounds of an English prosecutorial decision. Bahrain is not a party to the case and therefore it would be inappropriate for it to comment.”
It added: “As for the underlying factual allegations, which are not at issue in this case, Bahrain considers them to be both false and politically motivated.”
Prince Nasser was not available for comment.
FF, who has been granted asylum in the UK, claims he was badly beaten and given a prison sentence after taking part in protests in the Gulf state in February 2011 that have since left dozens dead, mainly demonstrators.
Lord Justice Laws, in a 2013 court ruling that was made public last week, notes that the proceedings brought by FF do not relate to what happened to him but are related to “allegations that Prince Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the son of the King of Bahrain, was directly involved in the torture of three individuals in prison in Bahrain”.
Since the government crushed protests in mid-March 2011, low-level violence has continued to afflict the Gulf state as protests led by the Shia majority continue against the minority Sunni-led government.
At the height of the crackdown, Prince Nasser told Bahrain TV anyone who called for the downfall of the regime would be held “accountable”, adding that “Bahrain is an island where there is nowhere to escape”.
Bahrain’s government says it is reforming after an independent commission criticised the security forces for the systematic use of torture. But the opposition says cosmetic changes have not prevented continued repression.
The Director of Public Prosecutions in London was given a dossier in July 2012 prepared by the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin, containing material purporting to implicate Prince Nasser “in the torture of detained prisoners in April 2011”.
The arrest and prosecution of the prince, who travels regularly to the UK, was sought by FF’s lawyers. Torture carried out by a public official anywhere in the world is an offence under section 134 of the UK’s Criminal Justice Act of 1988.
The dossier was passed to the War Crimes team of the Metropolitan Police and in August 2012, the Crown Prosecution Service indicated that Prince Nasser enjoyed immunity under the State Immunity Act as a member of the Bahraini royal household and had functional immunity as commander of the Royal Guard of Bahrain.
When pressed to review their decision, the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism division indicated in September 2012 that his household was separate from that of the king so he did not enjoy immunity from his royal status – but that he had functional immunity as commander of the Royal Guard of Bahrain, a post he has held since June 2011.
FF is now seeking to challenge the CPS decision as “erroneous in law”, in a case which is likely to be heard later this year.
The proceedings have not been reported before now owing to previous confidentiality orders against naming Prince Nasser.
Tom Hickman, barrister for FF, told the High Court on Friday that the prince “had not indicated a willingness to participate in these proceedings”.
In a court hearing on Friday, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice King made a court order setting aside restrictions on revealing the identity of Prince Nasser.
In his earlier ruling, Lord Justice Laws made it clear that it was “perfectly right” that Prince Nasser’s identity should “not be concealed” as these “are, or will become public proceedings”.
He added that there was no basis in law for concealing identity solely on the grounds that serious allegations were involved or that a high position was enjoyed in a foreign state.