R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet

Last updated

R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Magistrate
Pinochet 11-09-1982.JPG
Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet
Court House of Lords
Full case nameR v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte
Decided25 November 1998
Citation(s)[1998] UKHL 41, [2000] 1 AC 61 [1]
Case history
Prior action(s)Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, [1999] 38 ILM 68 (Q.B. Div'l Ct. 1998)
Subsequent action(s)No 2 [1999] UKHL 52, [2000] 1 AC 119. No 3 [1999] UKHL 17, [2000] 1 AC 147.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Slynn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Steyn, Lord Nicholls, Lord Lloyd, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Goff, Lord Hope, Lord Hutton, Lord Saville, Lord Millett, Lord Phillips

R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, [1] 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law. [2]

Contents

In the first judgment, a panel of five judges ruled that Pinochet, as a former head of state, was not entitled to immunity from prosecution for the crimes of torture and could therefore be extradited to Spain to face charges. [1] However, in a subsequent judgment that was to prove controversial, the ruling was set aside (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) (Pinochet II) following revelations that one of the Law Lords had links to one of the intervenors in the case, Amnesty International, thereby creating an appearance of bias. [3] A new panel of judges (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) (Pinochet III)) subsequently affirmed that Pinochet was not entitled to state immunity but that acts committed outside of British territories could only be prosecuted under national law if committed after the passage of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (which gave UK courts universal jurisdiction over crimes of torture). [4]

Facts

Pinochet had been accused by Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon of torture, a crime under international law that can be prosecuted in any country under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. While on a visit to London for a medical treatment, Pinochet was arrested by British authorities following the issuance of an arrest warrant via Interpol by the Spanish judge. Pinochet's lawyers argued before a High Court panel presided by Lord Bingham that since Pinochet was head of state at the time of the alleged crimes, he was immune from the jurisdiction of British courts. The panel disagreed, ruling that Pinochet did not enjoy immunity from prosecution. [5]

Judgment

Pinochet (No 1)

By a 3–2 majority, Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Steyn ruled that Pinochet did not enjoy state immunity.

Notable passages of the judgment include the following:

... the development of international law since the Second World War justifies the conclusion that by the time of the 1973 coup d'état, and certainly ever since, international law condemned genocide, torture, hostage taking and crimes against humanity (during an armed conflict or in peacetime) as international crimes deserving of punishment. Given this state of international law, it seems to me difficult to maintain that the commission of such high crimes may amount to acts performed in the exercise of the functions of a Head of State.

... International law has made plain that certain types of conduct, including torture and hostage-taking, are not acceptable conduct on the part of anyone. This applies as much to heads of state, or even more so, as it does to everyone else. The contrary conclusion would make a mockery of international law.

Lord Slynn and Lord Lloyd dissented.

Pinochet (No 2)

In R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2), [6] a new panel of judges, composed of Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Goff, Lord Hope, Lord Hutton, Lord Saville, Lord Millett and Lord Phillips, set aside the first judgment on the grounds that an appearance of bias had been created, following revelations that one of the judges, Lord Hoffmann, had failed to disclose personal ties to Amnesty International, an intervenor in the case against Pinochet. [7]

Pinochet (No 3)

In R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3), the House ruled that Pinochet did not enjoy immunity from prosecution for torture, but only as it applied after 8 December 1988, when section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, giving UK courts universal jurisdiction over crimes of torture, came into effect, Pinochet could not be tried as it would constitute a retroactive law. [8]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 House of Lords. "Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet, R v. [1998] UKHL 41; [2000] 1 AC 61; [1998] 4 All ER 897; [1998] 3 WLR 1456 (25th November, 1998)". United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. Retrieved 29 May 2021 via bailii.org.
  2. Byers, Michael, The Law and Politics of the Pinochet Case, 10 Duke J. of Comp. & Int'l L. p 416
  3. "UK Politics Pinochet judge under pressure". BBC News. 15 January 1999. Retrieved 10 May 2010.
  4. [2000] 1 AC 147
  5. Rozenberg, Joshua (2 March 2000). "Legal lessons of Pinochet case". BBC News. Retrieved 15 April 2021.
  6. "Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2); HL 15 Jan 1999". swarb.co.uk. 30 June 2015. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
  7. "A look at Lord Hoffmann". BBC News. 17 December 1998. Retrieved 10 May 2010.
  8. "Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet; R v. Evans and Another and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, Ex Parte Pinochet, R v. [1999] UKHL 17 (24th March, 1999". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 3 February 2020.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial functions of the House of Lords</span> Historical judicial role of the UK House of Lords

Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.

James Brian Edward Hutton, Baron Hutton, PC was a British Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural justice</span> Concept in UK law

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

In law, ex parte is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction of", thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. In English law and its derivatives, namely Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party.

Nicolas Christopher Henry Browne-Wilkinson, Baron Browne-Wilkinson, PC was a British judge who served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1991 to 2000, and Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1998 to 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Donald Nicholls, Baron Nicholls of Birkenhead</span>

Donald James Nicholls, Baron Nicholls of Birkenhead, was a British barrister who became a Law Lord.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State Immunity Act 1978</span> United Kingdom legislation

The State Immunity Act 1978 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which was passed to implement the European Convention on State Immunity of 1972 into British law. The doctrine of absolute state immunity was changed to one of restricted immunity, whereby a foreign state could be sued in the British courts for some certain activities, usually of a commercial nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lennie Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann</span> British and South African judge (born 1934)

Leonard Hubert "Lennie" Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann is a retired senior South African–British judge. He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1995 to 2009.

R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous as a legal precedent in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

Senior District Judge Timothy Henry Workman is a British retired judge, a long-term stipendiary magistrate who served as Senior District Judge for England and Wales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Greenwood</span>

Sir Christopher John Greenwood is Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge and a former British judge at the International Court of Justice. Prior to his election, he was professor of international law at the London School of Economics and a barrister who regularly appeared as counsel before the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the English courts, and other tribunals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immunity from prosecution (international law)</span>

Immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae. This is an immunity granted to people who perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae. This is an immunity granted to certain officials because of the office they hold, rather than in relation to the act they have committed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet</span> Arrest of the dictator for crimes against humanity (1990s–2000s)

General Augusto Pinochet was indicted for human rights violations committed in his native Chile by Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garzón on 10 October 1998. He was arrested in London six days later and held on house arrest for a year and a half before being released by the British government in March 2000. Authorised to return to Chile, Pinochet was subsequently indicted by judge Juan Guzmán Tapia and charged with several crimes. He died on 10 December 2006 without having been convicted. His arrest in London made the front pages of newspapers worldwide; not only did it involve the head of the military dictatorship that ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990, it marked the first time judges had applied the principle of universal jurisdiction, declaring themselves competent to judge crimes committed in a country by former heads of state, despite the existence of local amnesty laws.

John Stewart Hobhouse, Baron Hobhouse of Woodborough, PC was a British judge and law lord.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

A full court is a court of law sitting with a greater than normal number of judges. For a court which is usually presided over by one judge, a full court has three or more judges; for a court which, like many appellate courts, normally sits as a bench of three judges, a full court has a bench of five judges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Doctrine of bias in Singapore law</span> Principle of appellate law in Singapore

Bias is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law which a person can rely upon to challenge the judgment of a court or tribunal, or a public authority's action or decision. There are three forms of bias, namely, actual, imputed and apparent bias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrate (England and Wales)</span> Legal office held by lay people in England and Wales

In England and Wales, magistrates are trained volunteers, selected from the local community, who deal with a wide range of criminal and civil proceedings. They are also known as Justices of the Peace. In the adult criminal court, magistrates decide on offences which carry up to twelve months in prison, or an unlimited fine. Magistrates also sit in the family court where they help resolve disputes that involve children, and in the youth court which deals with criminal matters involving young people aged 10-17. Established over 650 years ago, the magistracy is a key part of the judiciary of England and Wales, and it is a role underpinned by the principles of 'local justice' and 'justice by one's peers'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law</span>

Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law is one of the three broad categories of judicial review, the other two being illegality and irrationality. A public authority commits procedural impropriety if it fails to properly observe either statutory procedural requirements, or common law rules of natural justice and fairness.

Metropolitan Properties Co (FCG) Ltd v Lannon was a United Kingdom constitutional law case concerning natural justice.

References