A FOREIGN former head of state, whilst having immunity from the criminal processes of the United Kingdom in respect of acts performed in the exercise of functions recognised by international law as functions of a head of state, was not immune in respect of conduct which was plainly unacceptable in international law.
The House of Lords (Lord Slynn and Lord Lloyd dissenting) reversed the decision of the Divisional Court (Law Report, 30 October 1998), which had quashed provisional warrants issued under section 8(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989 at the request of the Spanish Government for the arrest of the applicant.
The charges against the applicant were torture, contrary to section 134(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and hostage- taking, contrary to section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982. It was conceded that both offences were extradition crimes within the meaning of the Extradition Act. The Divisional Court quashed the warrant on the ground that the applicant was head of the Chilean state at the time of the alleged offences and that he was, therefore, entitled to immunity from the criminal processes of the English courts. The court certified, as a question of law of general public importance, "the proper interpretation and scope of the immunity enjoyed by a former head of state from arrest and extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom in respect of acts committed while he was head of state". Alun Jones QC, Professor Christopher Greenwood, James Lewis and Campaspe Lloyd-Jacob (Crown Prosecution Service, International Division) for the Government of Spain and the Metropolitan Police; Clive Nicholls QC, Clare Montgomery QC, Helen Malcolm, James Cameron and Julian Knowles (Kingsley Napley) for the applicant; David Lloyd Jones (Treasury Solicitor) as amicus curiae; Professor Ian Brownlie QC, Michael Fordham, Owen Davies and Frances Webber (Bindmans) for Amnesty as intervenor. …