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
