defense of John Charles I will expose this Monday in the London Court of Appeals his “new evidence” to justify that he be authorized to present, before said court, an appeal against the sentence of Judge Mathew Nicklin of March 24 that denied him any type of immunity (personal and functional) against the civil lawsuit of his ex-lover Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein for harassment, monitoring of agents of the National Intelligence Center (CNI) in charge of the general Felix Sanz Roldan in Monaco and London and defamation.
The two parties, the lawyers of Juan Carlos I and Corinna, can finish their arguments this Monday, around 4:30 p.m. (3:30 p.m. Spanish peninsular time) or on Tuesday, since the Court has estimated the time to present the points at six hours. of sight.
The sight augurs surprises.
Why? Because, as EL PERIÓDICO has already revealed, the lawyers representing Juan Carlos -headed by the barrister Daniel Bethlehem- have requested “permission to appeal, stay of execution [del procedimiento] and authorization to have new tests”.
Judge Nicklin dismissed the so-called personal immunity of Juan Carlos I, that is, the one invoked by his defense for being “sovereign” despite his abdication as King of Spain and head of state.
Request rejected
It was lapidary. “If King Juan Carlos steals a diamond ring from a London jeweler, according to his defense he would be immune from British civil justice. It cannot be,” the judge wrote. This dismissal of personal immunity, and of all kinds of protection, led the judge to reject the request for authorization from the king emeritus, made at a hearing on March 29, to present an appeal before Judge Nicklin himself, thus opening the road to the hearing this Monday in the Court of Appeals, civil division, where the defense of the emeritus will ask for the same thing: permission to appeal the sentence of March 24 last. If the judges refuse to grant permission, the proceeding returns to Judge Nicklin, who intends, as announced on March 29, speed up the investigation of Corinna’s evidence on the alleged harassment, although two other minor preliminary issues remain pending (communication of the lawsuit by WhatsApp to Juan Carlos I and request that the United Kingdom court decline its jurisdiction in favor of the Spanish courts).
Juan Carlos I comes with the wind in his face. Because two sentences of the supreme court of the United Kingdom, one from last week, establish that immunity cannot be applied to the personal or private activity of a former diplomat (which can be applied to a head of state) and practicing diplomat.
Exercise of diplomatic functions
A 2017 ruling, in which Judge Jonathan Sumption was a rapporteur, authorized an appeal by a Filipino domestic worker, Mrs. Reyes, against the former Saudi diplomat Al-Maliki in the United Kingdom, who allegedly engaged in some practices of about either human trafficking against her during the period in which she remained employed. The social court had protected Al-Maliki for her presumed diplomatic immunity. And Mrs. Reyes asked permission to appeal.
“A diplomatic agent who is no longer in his post and who has left the country only enjoys immunity with respect to those relevant acts of his management in the exercise of his diplomatic functions. The employment and mistreatment of Mrs. Reyes have not been acts committed by Mr. Al-Maliki in the exercise of his diplomatic functions”, says the judgment of October 18, 2017, which gave the green light to appeal.
Look where, if five years ago it was decided in those terms regarding a former Saudi diplomat, on July 6, as we have reported, the Supreme Court returned to rule on an identical case, in the request for authorization to appeal the decision of the social court that protected the Saudi diplomat Khalid Balfar, who would also have subjected the Filipino domestic worker Josephine Wong to a regime of “modern slavery”. Only unlike the Al-Malaki case, the Balfar case concerns a practicing Saudi diplomat.
Public or private events?
Where does all this lead? It is evident: the facts that Corinna denounces, were they public or private acts?
In his sentence of last March 24, he picks up one of the arguments of the barrister Bethlehem, according to which Juan Carlos I, would be defenseless because in relation to the facts, no Spanish official could testify in the British court as these acts were State servants and, therefore, they would be protected by the immunity of the Spanish state.
Judge Nicklin warned: “Hire private detectives to enter houses by Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein in Monaco and Switzerland, threats made by an intermediary, telephone calls and emails providing false information to the media about the plaintiff are private acts, not public acts. Any wealthy private person could have engaged in these behaviors.”
Nicklin took another step.
“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 General Felix Sanz Roldan He was acting in his public capacity. If that were the case, the plaintiff’s lawyers will make it clear in their lawsuit that Sanz Roldán acted in his private capacity 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 serve Juan Carlos
Corinna’s lawyers, in line with the judge, maintain that Sanz Roldán acted in a personal capacity to serve Juan Carlos I, not the Spanish State.
The defense of the emeritus has the advice of the professor of Public International Law at the King’s College in London, Philippa Webb, who defends his immunity. However, she has been part of the team that won Miss Wong’s appeal against Mr. Balfar. Precisely, against his immunity.
Related news
Daniel Bethlehem, Juan Carlos I’s lawyer, persists. He already lost the battle when in 2017 he defended Al-Maliki.
True things, friend Sancho.