header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 February 2009
Issue: 7355 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Discrimination , Human rights
printer mail-detail

The price of pain

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Should survivors of torture overseas be able to sue for damages in the UK courts? asks Richard Scorer

The draft Torture (Damages) Bill seeks to create an exception to the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) to enable victims of torture to bring civil claims in the UK courts against foreign states who perpetrate torture, and their officials. The Bill successfully passed its first reading in the House of Commons on 18 November 2008 and its supporters hope that with sufficient parliamentary time, the Bill will now be enacted into law. Why this legal change, and why now?

Underlying the Bill is the recognition that, currently, international legal prohibitions against torture are more honoured in the breach than the observance. Most governments in the world agree, in their official pronouncements, that torture is wrong, and have undertaken never to use it. These undertakings are formalised in the United Nations convention against torture, which came into force in 1987. The convention bans the use of torture in all circumstances including threats to national security. 144

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll