The CNI, on the bench for the harassment operations of Juan Carlos I to Corinna

The great novelty is that this view will premiere andl new team of lawyers cHired by the emeritus after leaving Clifford Chance’s law firm in the City of London. A is expected new approach to defense after the judicial defeat in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales that has already passed an invoice of 271,000 euros for costs.

The team of Carter Ruck Law Firm It is coordinated by the lawyer Guy Martin, who maintains an intense activity in the Persian Gulf countries, especially in Qatar, among others. He is accompanied by some members of the team that Clifford Chance had hired, such as the ‘barrister’ -lawyer in charge of presenting the case in court- Daniel Bethlehem. Two other ‘barristers’ will join -which increases the fees vertically-, such as Timothy Otty and Paul Luckurst. The new team also includes King’s College Professor of Public International Law Philippa Web, who had already worked on the previous team.

Precedent with a diplomat

A curiosity: both Luckurst and Webb challenged the immunity of the Saudi diplomat Khalid Basfar in the case of Josephine Wong, a Filipino domestic worker who was granted by the Court of Appeals –on July 6– the right to appeal a resolution of a social court that had dismissed his case due to the presumed immunity of the accused.

The argument they defended is that the diplomat did not treat the employee as a “modern slave & rdquor; exercising her “official function & rdquor; –protected by the Vienna Diplomatic Relations Convention, 1961– but that she acted for her own personal benefit. The Court of Appeals accepted this criterion and created the first precedent for a diplomat, still in office, who lacked immunity in that situation.

And in the case of John Charles I instead, they will defend the immunity of their client.

The arguments will revolve around the three reasons put forward by the defense in hearings before Judge Nicklin. But it is assumed that, as the Carter-Ruck law firm announced in his brief to the Court, there is “new evidence & rdquor; (‘fresh evidence’).

The three points of immunity that the lawyers defended were: First, that it has been “sovereign & rdquor; as king of Spain and head of state; in addition, he is part of the family of the Royal House of Spain ‘(‘ royal household ‘); and in any case, the alleged acts described by Corinna were carried out by the CNI.

As the ‘barrister’ Behtlehem is still in the team, the explanation he gave in the hearings before Judge Nicklin last December is valid. He seemed to have no doubt that the CNI and Sanz Roldán acted in his official capacity.

“The State immunity would cover officials of the Spanish State whose conduct is directly or indirectly challenged by the claim, in particular the immunity from testifying and the consequences for Her Majesty [Juan Carlos I] to exercise an appropriate defense in the event that the courts reject personal and functional immunity & rdquor ;.

Although it was not said with all the letters, the CNI had acted in the acts that Corinna describes (which are not accepted as true) in its official institutional function. It will be necessary to follow this Monday the arguments to see to what extent can the CNI pay the bill.

In the suit, lawyers for Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein allege CNI agents who “kept the applicant and her advisers under surveillance in London and elsewhere, trespassed on her Shropshire property, and illegally intervened/monitored your mobile and internet accounts, and the mobile and internet accounts of your advisors”.

Physical surveillance and entry into your property

Likewise, it indicates that “General Sanz Roldán, representatives of Juan Carlos I and/or agents or contractors of the CNI, following the instructions of the defendant, put the plaintiff, and other people close to her, under physical surveillancewhich included personal and vehicle surveillance, trespassing on the property where she resided and hacking her and his phones and computers & rdquor ;.

Description abounds: “The General Sanz Roldan used armed personnel from the Monegasque security company Algiz as a front in order to allow a CNI team coordinated from Spain to access his property without his consent. Employees of Algiz informed the Claimant that the “Spanish sweep team” arrived on June 4 from Madrid and needed five days to “sweep” her office and flat. Business and personal documents belonging to the claimant had been examined and/or or copied and some deleted during the operation, without their consent & rdquor ;.

Related news

Corinne She assures that Juan Carlos I and General Sanz Roldán told her that “Algiz had been hired to protect her from paparazzi and journalists who could steal documents. However, the real objectives of the defendant were to find and eliminate any documents that were in her possession and that were related to his business and financial dealings; verify all information about the applicant that could be used to pressure her to comply with her wishes; prevent her from providing any information regarding anything that could incriminate him; and install surveillance devices… Sanz Roldán clearly explained that she acted following the defendant’s instructions. The defendant confirmed that this was the situation in his Phone conversations between the plaintiff and the defendant during the period between April and June 2012 & rdquor ;.

Two judges will hear today arguments of the two parties in a hearing that can last two and a half hours, although it could require a second day. Judge Nicolas Underhill, vice president of the Court of Appeals, civil division, is one of them and recently gained notoriety when he acted in the case of the American actor Johnny Depp, denying him permission to appeal the sentence in London that gave the reason to the newspaper The Sun in relation to the mistreatment of his wife Amber Heard. The other judge is Peter Jackson.