The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has issued on Wednesday, July 6, a ruling on the diplomatic immunity that puts a new stone in the way of the resource of John Charles I in defense of his immunity from the civil suit of his ex-lover Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein for alleged acts of harassment, illegal monitoring of agents of the National Intelligence Center (CNI) in London and Monaco. The case was heard at a hearing on October 13 and 14, 2021.
The ruling, issued by the Supreme Court, comes out six days after the Court of AppealsCivil Division, hold a hearing next Monday, July 11 (which the Court has authorized to broadcast via streaming on YouTube) whose duration is estimated to be six hours, to hear the arguments of the lawyers of both parties on the possibility of authorizing, or not, the presentation of a appeal against the judgment of the judge of the High Court of England or Wales Matthew Nicklinwho on March 24 denied both that sovereign or State immunity and the possibility of appealing his own decision in appeal on March 29.
Josephine Wong
The sentence, of 65 pages (including the dissenting vote of the minority), of the ‘Khalid Basfar case’ is the response to an appeal filed by the Filipino domestic worker Josephine Wong against a resolution of the social court that decided to dismiss his labor demand for compensation before the shield of diplomatic immunity wielded by Basfar.
According to the ruling, a diplomat who exploits domestic workers in conditions of slavery it cannot hide behind the status of diplomatic immunity agreed by the states.
In this case, Basfar’s defense, which denies the facts, claimed that, even if they were truthful, they could not submit to the civil or labor jurisdiction of the United Kingdom based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961).
The defense argued that precisely the concept of exploitation of an employee fits within the “commercial activity & rdquor; that a diplomat can exercise.
Exception to immunity
However, the convention establishes an exception that is not covered by immunity: “Any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the visiting country outside of his official duties & rdquor ;.
The question to be resolved on appeal, then, was whether to exploit a domestic worker in the conditions denounced constituted carrying out a “commercial activity & rdquor; protected by immunity Vienna Convention.
Josephine Wong was hired by Basfar for her house in Saudi Arabia in 2015 and moved with her employer and family to the UK.
According to the ruling, “she was kept practically incommunicado and was only authorized to speak to her family twice a year through Mr. Basfar’s mobile phone. She was required to work daily from seven in the morning until approximately eleven at night, no days off and had to wear a alarm device all the time available to the family 24 hours. They yelled at him and called offensive names. When the family was home, Miss Wong was allowed only to eat leftovers; if family members were away from home, she was allowed to cook something & rdquor ;.
beyond the facts
As in the case of Corinna v Juan Carlos I in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales and in the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court did not have to determine the truth of the facts contained in Josephine Wong’s lawsuit but whether the treatment she received is protected or covered by the diplomatic immunity of Basfar in the event that it was a case of “modern slavery & rdquor ;.
According to the ruling, “Mr. Basfar’s treatment of Ms. Wong amounts to a form of modern slavery, whether it is forced labour, servility or human trafficking. This shows that the relationship between them has not been one of free employment as part of Mr. Basfar’s ordinary life in the United Kingdom as a diplomatic resident. And it shows that his conduct amounted to a commercial activity (in what matters here) for personal gain. It is not comparable to an ordinary relationship of incidental employment in the daily life of a diplomat and his family in the country in which they are. There is a material and quantitative difference between these activities. Employment is a voluntary relationship, freely bound and governed by the terms of a contract & rdquor ;.
Comparable cases?
Related news
The conclusion of the judgment is that Miss Wong’s case fits the exemption for immunity provided for in the Vienna Convention. “If the facts are proven, Mr Basfar is not immune from the civil jurisdiction of UK courts and a hearing is required to test whether the allegations are true. We allow the appeal and urge the labor court to modify the sentence that rejected the lawsuit & rdquor ;.
The case of Juan Carlos I is even less likely to obtain immunity, according to legal sources. Because he is a former head of state, unlike Basfar, who remains a Saudi diplomat in the UK. As he explains Joseph Galvezlawyer-barrister of the firm Del Canto Chambers in London, to EL PERIÓDICO, “the immunity from jurisdiction ends when a head of state ceases to hold office, maintaining said immunity only in relation to official acts carried out while he was head of state, not those carried out in his private sphere & rdquor ;.