Diplomatic immunity had not been waived by an Australian policeman acting in breach of a court undertaking re documents. The effect of s14(1) was to give state officials protection ‘under the same cloak’ as the state itself: ‘The protection afforded . .
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception to state immunity. Held: The Kingdom’s appeal succeeded. The protection of state immunity was essentially a … Continue reading Jones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others: HL 14 Jun 2006
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia. Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials involved personally. The court had been correct to reject the claim against the state. Despite other developments, … Continue reading Jones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another: CA 28 Oct 2004
