The case ‘Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn & Juan Carlos Alfonso Víctor María de Borbón y Borbón’, as it is called corinna’s lawsuit, former lover of Juan Carlos I, will be investigated by the judge of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales Matthew Nicklin and could, if there are no imponderables or an agreement in extremis, end up in a trial. This is the main conclusion of the hearing that was held this Monday, July 18, in the Court of Appeals, civil division, of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
The two judges – Nicholas Underhill and Peter Jackson – have authorized the new defense of Juan Carlos I -the Carter-Ruck law firm- to appeal for his immunity while he was King of Spain and Head of State, until mid-June 2014.
The verdict of March 24
This is what is deduced from the three points for which he has been authorized to appeal Judge Nicklin’s March 24 ruling: an alleged wrong test on the ifunctional community (call ratioae matter), a critique of Judge Nicklin’s sentencing guidance to the plaintiff to correct her initial statement of claim, and, finally, Judge Nicklin’s suggestion that defer and revise a “resolution on immunity & rdquor; at a later stage of the investigation.
The judges refused to authorize the appeal in the matter of the belonging of Juan Carlos I to the Royal House of His Majesty King Felipe VI (royal household immunity), after hearing arguments such as the fact that the emeritus appears on the website of the Royal House, among others.
The fact that you live in Abu Dhabi and the circumstance that it does not depend financially on the Royal House -a principle established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals, as Judge Nicklin recalled in his sentence- and the circumstances that have surrounded the estrangement between Juan Carlos I and Felipe VI have helped settle this point in favor of Corinna.
Deliberation of a few minutes
The judges retired to exchange opinions after listening to the arguments of the new ‘barrister’-spokesperson for the defense and the person in charge of the plaintiff. And in a few minutes they returned to announce their decision, which they will provide this Thursday or Friday in writing about the reasons for accepting the three points indicated and rejecting the fourth.
Juan Carlos I has renounced the first point of his previous strategy: to demand immunity for being “sovereign” and former head of state of Spain.
On the subject of the immunity of Juan Carlos I as a member of the Royal House, the ‘barrister’ James Lewis was particularly ironic before getting the judges’ refusal to authorize the appeal. “Of course everything can change. Your Honor, if we receive a letter from the King of Spain Felipe VI where he tells us that Juan Carlos I is part of the Royal House, this would change things.” One of the judges followed the irony: “That letter will not arrive & mldr; & rdquor ;, he pointed out.
And so, between jokes and truth, the royal household immunity was left behind
Another of the issues that this Monday returned to the fore is that of the National Intelligence Center (CNI) and its then director, General Felix Sanz Roldan.
The defense of Juan Carlos I maintains with greater clarity now than in his previous allegations, that Sanz Roldán acted in the events described in Corinna’s lawsuit (which they deny) “clearly on duty & rdquor; (plainly on duty).
In other words, Juan Carlos I, in his official role as Sanz Roldán’s superior, would have managed to get Sanz Roldán, as part of his official role as director of the CNI, to develop activities in relation to Corinna.
To the objection of the plaintiff’s lawyer in the sense that his acts have been personal, are of a private nature, one of the judges pointed out: “If the king and Head of State orders the director of the intelligence service some activities, how can these be private?
Pinochet and Assange
James Lewis, a lawyer who got the green light from the British courts in 1999 to extradite Augusto Pinochet from the UK and that has recently obtained the extradition of the journalist Julian Assange (still pending delivery to the United States), insisted that not all acts of a head of state are official or public. “It cannot be assumed: l´etat c´est moi” (The State is me), attributed to Louis IV the Sun King.
Lewis also explained that his client has never argued that the acts of Sanz Roldan -as the defense of Juan Carlos I has blamed him- have been committed in his capacity as a public official. Rather as a very close man and personal friend of John Charles I. Acts to “protect him & rdquor ;.
He also recalled that although the evidence does not appear in the British procedure, Sanz Roldán declared in court as witness -in the oral trial of the former director of the CNI against the ex-commissioner Jose Manuel Villarejo– that the intelligence service has not acted abroad because it is forbidden to do so, although he did meet with Corinna in London, on May 5, 2012, in her bedroom The Connaught Hotel.
In that trial, the current director of the CNI also testified as a witness hope casteleiro. Corinna’s defense maintains that the defense strategy of Juan Carlos I by assuming that Sanz Roldán acted in his official capacity “is embarrassing for the Spanish government & rdquor;
The procedure, therefore, will continue with the sole question of whether or not Judge Nicklin’s investigation will include the facts referring to the years 2012-2014, until the abdication of Juan Carlos Iwhich will be settled at the appeal hearing scheduled for next October.
Therefore, the defense of the emeritus has not achieved its main objective, which is to obtain authorization to appeal in favor of immunity for all the facts.
The procedure will experience a delay – unavoidable, on the other hand, given the break for the holidays – but it can already be concluded, in a preliminary way, that it will continue. And that Corinna’s evidence may be subject to contradiction before the judge.
“The technical question of the immunity of the emeritus has been significantly reduced to whether the acts carried out prior to the abdication were within or outside the public function of his position. This may pose a compromising situation because, hypothetically, this would mean admitting that State officials could have committed alleged criminal acts in the UK. On the contrary, not admitting the public nature of such actions would be admitting that they were part of the private sphere & rdquor; points out after the hearing Josep Gálvez, lawyer-‘barrister’ of the London law firm Del Canto Chambers
“The most relevant thing is that it is no longer discussed that the rest of the behaviors carried out after the abdication do not have any protection & rdquor ;, he emphasizes.
Related news