Fawaz al-Attiya, former spokesman for Qatar, will appeal his torture case against the decision in favor of the former Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani .
"I have instructed my lawyers to lodge grounds of appeal against this decision and I trust that my case will be heard. I am confident that justice will prevail and HBJ will answer for what he has done; diplomatic immunity is intended to facilitate relations between states, not to arbitrarily lift the rich and powerful above the law," Attiya stated.
Justice Blake ruled that Hamad bin Jassim, also known as HBJ, cannot be sued before the jurisdiction of any courts because he is covered both by diplomatic and state immunity.
Attiya alleged that he was falsely imprisoned for 15 months in Qatar jail from October 2009 to January 2011. He was also kept in a private confinement where he was tortured and sleep deprived. The imprisonment was caused by his refusal to sell the 20,000sq m land located in the Rayyan area to the billionaire's seizure order.
Attiya said in a statement, "I am disappointed that the court was not able to hear my claim against HBJ on the basis that he has claimed diplomatic and state immunity." He claimed that HBJ acted in private capacity. Thus, he is not covered by such immunity.
However, Justice Blake clarified that it was the Foreign Office that will decide who was and who was not a diplomat, not on his chamber.
The legal team of Attiya debunked such statement and described the decision as 'muddled thinking.'
It laid down a recently decided jurisprudence that was ruled by the same court which denied a Saudi businessman diplomatic immunity in a financial dispute with his ex-wife, Christina Estrada.
In such ruling, Walid Juffali was not granted immunity by the court because he had not undertaken any duties relation to the role of a diplomat. But the Foreign Office spokesperson commented that it was "for the court to rule on diplomatic immunity." The legal team concluded that both courts and Foreign Office were "playing pass the parcel" on the issue.
In a statement given to Middle East Eye, solicitor Imran Khan said, "It is very disappointing that the court has not allowed my client's case to be heard. I have been instructed to appeal the decision; particularly as the same court in another case (the Juffali case) came to the opposite conclusion only one week ago." He added, "The Court of Appeal should now deal with this issue and settle, once and for all, the circumstances in which an individual is able to claim diplomatic immunity."
Included in his judgment, Justice Blake said that HBJ was serving prime minister and such office could not be separated from public office.
Under the State Immunity Act, diplomats are covered under Vienna Convention which shields them from court proceedings in the countries where they serve.
© 2023 Lawyer Herald All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
Get the Most Popular Lawyerherald Stories in a Weekly Newsletter
Join the Discussion
