Jones v Ministry of the Interior of Saudi Arabia
[2006] UKHL 26
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
State immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 extends to individual state officials sued in their official capacity, as well as to the state itself, and international law does not currently recognise an exception to civil state immunity for allegations of torture, even though the prohibition of torture is itself a peremptory (jus cogens) norm.
Facts
Mr Jones alleged he was tortured by Saudi Arabian police and prison officials while detained in the Kingdom, and brought civil proceedings in England against the Kingdom's Ministry of the Interior and a named individual officer for assault, false imprisonment and torture; a further group of claimants brought similar proceedings against other named officials over separate alleged torture. The Kingdom and the individual officials applied to set aside service of the proceedings on the ground of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978.
Judgment Summary
The House of Lords held that the State Immunity Act 1978 barred the claims against both the Kingdom and the individual officials, since their alleged acts, if they occurred, were done in an official capacity and so attributable to the state, leaving no principled basis for treating the individual defendants differently from the state itself on immunity. Their Lordships found no sufficiently settled rule of international law creating a torture exception to civil state immunity, notwithstanding the jus cogens status of the prohibition on torture in other contexts.
Key Quotes
State immunity is a rule of international law and should be interpreted in accordance with international law as it stands.
Editorial summary of reasoning attributed to Lord Bingham(not a verbatim quotation)
Subsequent Treatment
Confirmed by the ICJ in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy) [2012].
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help