Surprise, surprise. The illness of one of the two judges who will hear the request for permission to John Charles I to appeal the ruling of March 24 – which rejected his alleged immunity from the alleged harassment denounced by his ex-lover Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein– has caused this Monday the postponement of the hearing, foreseeably until next Monday, July 18, at 2:00 p.m. London time (3:00 p.m. Spanish peninsular time). The two judges in charge are Nicholas UnderhillVice President of the Court of Appeals, Civil Division, and Peter Jackson.
But there is another background surprise: John Charles I has parted ways, in the middle of the legal war with Corinna, from the law firm Clifford Chancewhich has already lost the first battle, that of immunity, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, as a result of the sentence of the judge Matthew Nicklinwhich is now intended to appeal.
The new law firm chosen, as revealed by the London magazine ‘The Lawyer’, is Carter-Ruck and, according to the publication, the lawyer who is responsible for handling the case is Guy Martinhead of the firm’s international department and very close to its founder, Peter Carter Ruck.
Compared to the international mega law firm Clifford Chance, it is about the choice of a smaller law firm, “specialized in sensitive cases”, in the fields of “reputation management, media, international law and resolution of commercial disputes”, matters in which the presence of personalities stands out. diplomatic. And also in defamation, one of the aspects of the case of Corinne versus John Charles I.
political sensitivity
Carter-Ruck presents itself as a firm “particularly good at handling cases involving political and geopolitical sensitivitywhich comes from the intense work he does in the diplomatic sector in which he is especially situated & rdquor ;.
Guy Martin, the lawyer who will coordinate the defense of Juan Carlos I, for his part, has a career as a lawyer in countries of the Persian Gulf. Its main clients include the state of Qatar, located on the small peninsula of Qatar, to the east of the Arabian peninsula, where it has a single land border to the south, with Saudi Arabiaand various institutions in that country.
He also legally advises the sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadithe Saudi billionaire businessman famous for having frequented Osama bin Laden in the early eighties, when what would later be the mastermind of the attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 received support from the United States to end the power of the former USSR in Afghanistan.
As explained this Monday, July 11 to EL PERIÓDICO Lawrence Northmore Ballsenior associate of the firm, “His Majesty King Juan Carlos is now represented by Carter-Ruck, as well as by the ‘barristers’ Timothy Otty, Sir Daniel Bethlehemthe teacher Philippa Webb Y Paul Lucurst”.
Legal sources consulted in London expressed their amazement at this “change of horse in the middle of the river & rdquor ;. All in all, Carter-Ruck will have two relevant members that Clifford Chance had hired and whose strategy led to a defeat -immunity- that has already required the emeritus to pay costs for the equivalent of 271,000 euros: the ‘barrister’ Daniel Bethlehem and Professor of International Public Law at King’s College London, Philippa Webb.
“New Evidence”
What changes will the replacement of Clifford Chance by Carter-Ruck mean?
In their application for leave to appeal, the attorneys speak of “new evidence”. But legal sources consulted indicate that it may be a refocusing of the immunity arguments, given Judge Nicklin’s outright rejection of the concept of sovereign immunity that Bethlehem used in his first defense of Juan Carlos I, and that led the judge to emphasize that, although the emeritus is a member of the Spanish royal family, this does not make him a member of the House of His Majesty King Felipe VI (‘royal household’). Precisely, Nicklin argued, because according to the Court of Appeals, a central aspect of that membership is economic dependence. That Juan Carlos I does not have.
The fact that the emeritus could not even spend the night during his visit to Spain last May for a single night in the Zarzuela Palace reinforces Judge Nicklin’s arguments.
If, then, we exclude the sovereign immunity -Juan Carlos I is not sovereign since his abdication since the only sovereign, according to the judge, is Felipe VI- and belonging to the Royal House, what is left to defend the immunity that the judge called “functional & rdquor; (‘rationae matter’)?
something that already Daniel Bethlehem developed in the final part of his presentation at the hearings on December 6 and 7, 2021.
The key to immunity
It’s about the state immunity which, according to Bethlehem, “would cover the officials of the Spanish State whose conduct is challenged by the lawsuit directly or indirectly, in particular the immunity from testifying and the consequences for His Majesty [Juan Carlos I] to exercise an appropriate defense in the event that the courts reject the personal and functional immunity”.
In other words: the National Intelligence Center run by General Felix Sanz Roldan acted in his official capacity.
Both Judge Nicklin and now Corinna’s lawyers maintain that Sanz Roldán committed alleged acts of harassment in his personal -unofficial- capacity in collaboration with Juan Carlos I, in London, Monaco and Switzerland.
But even if they were official acts, they would not be covered by immunity.
Related news
“The defense of Juan Carlos I has not provided evidence to support that the actions that are denounced have been acts sponsored by the State or that the general Felix Sanz Roldan He was acting in his public capacity. If that is the case, the plaintiff’s attorneys will make it clear in their lawsuit that Sanz Roldán acted on their behalf. private condition in the facts imputed to him. And if these acts of alleged harassment have the appearance of being carried out in the exercise of their public function (deployment of operational agents in London) then these acts are not immune when they take place outside of Spain.”
To all this, there are elementary questions: how much are the costs of lawyers and courts in London? Where does the money come from to pay?