KL v R.

KL v R.

The Convention against Torture, as interpreted in Pinochet (No. 3), excludes immunity ratione materiae for acts of torture between contracting states, regardless of whether the acts are isolated or systematic. The appellant's UN immunity from arrest and detention was validly and retrospectively waived by the Secretary-General. The Nepalese proceedings were civil and disciplinary, not criminal convictions, and do not bar prosecution in the UK. Any procedural breach by the UK under the Convention against Torture does not revive immunity or bar prosecution.

Parties
Appellant: KL; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against a Preparatory Hearing Ruling
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Immunity Ratione Materiae, UN Immunity, Autrefois Convict (double Jeopardy), Universal Jurisdiction for Torture, Interpretation of International Conventions, Procedural Obligations Under Convention Against Torture
Criminal Law International Law Human Rights Law Immunity Ratione Materiae UN Immunity Autrefois Convict (double Jeopardy) Universal Jurisdiction for Torture Interpretation of International Conventions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KL

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against a Preparatory Hearing Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to immunity ratione materiae for alleged acts of torture under international law and the Convention against Torture
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to immunity as a UN expert on mission at the time of arrest
  3. 3 Whether prior proceedings in Nepal amount to a conviction barring prosecution in the UK (autrefois convict)

Ratio Decidendi

The Convention against Torture, as interpreted in Pinochet (No. 3), excludes immunity ratione materiae for acts of torture between contracting states, regardless of whether the acts are isolated or systematic. The appellant's UN immunity from arrest and detention was validly and retrospectively waived by the Secretary-General. The Nepalese proceedings were civil and disciplinary, not criminal convictions, and do not bar prosecution in the UK. Any procedural breach by the UK under the Convention against Torture does not revive immunity or bar prosecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal on all grounds is dismissed.