The Redhunter

Mary tells me that

Last year when Ron appealed in his landmark case (Ron leads because he started proceedings when the others were still locked up) they ruled he could sue the individuals, ie: the torturers not the heads of any state, then the saudis appealed against that and so this will be the result of the saudi appeal, this means things will proceed to London High Court if the saudis lose this, if they win we take it all to Starsburg and apply to use the European Court of Human Rights, that is something you cannot do in US.

The legal brief in the case of Ronald Grant JONES v The Ministry of the Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya as Saudiya (The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) & Anor. and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs can be found here.

Sandy Mitchell is also an appellant, one of those listed as suing the KSA.

Following are some excerpts from the legal brief. There are two claims, or allegations of torture in this case

1. The first claim (No. HQ020X01805) is made by Mr Ronald Grant Jones against "The Ministry of the Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya as Saudiya (The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)" as first defendant and against Lieutenant Colonel Abdul Aziz, described as "a servant or agent" of The Kingdom, as second defendant. It is common ground that the first defendant is a department of and to be equated with The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (which I will call "The Kingdom"). The claim against both defendants is for "damages including aggravated and exemplary damages for assault and battery, trespass to the person, torture and unlawful imprisonment". But its central element for present purposes consists in allegations of systematic torture during a period of 67 days? imprisonment in solitary confinement between 16th March to 21st May 2001. This is said to have occurred after the claimant, Mr Jones, was mildly injured in a bomb blast outside a Riyadh book store on 15th March 2001 and hospitalised for a day. Mr Jones alleges that, following his release and return to England, he has suffered damage in England, in the form of post traumatic stress disorder and depression necessitating treatment, and is unable to work.

2. The second claim (No. HQ04X00431) is made by three claimants, Sandy Mitchell and Leslie Walker (both Britons) and William Sampson (a Canadian citizen), against four Saudi Arabian individuals, Ibrahim Al-Dali and Khalid Al-Saleh, Colonel Mohamed al Said and Prince Naif. The claim is expressed to be for assault and also (in the case of the third and fourth named defendants) negligence.
...

3. All three claimants in this claim allege that they were the victims of broadly similar patterns of systematic torture in prison. They allege that the torture was inflicted by the first and second defendants to elicit confessions which were eventually made, but which were, it is said, entirely false (though they led, it appears, at one point to sentences of death being passed on Messrs. Mitchell and Sampson).
...

All three claimants allege that, following their release and return to England, they have suffered ongoing psychological damage in England as a result of being tortured

9. The appeals now before us in relation to these two claims raise two central points. First, is The Kingdom entitled to immunity in respect of Mr Jones�s claim, which it accepts has been served on it? Second, is The Kingdom entitled to claim immunity on behalf of its officials in respect of the claims made against those officials in both Mr Jones�s and Messrs Mitchell�s, Sampson�s and Walker�s claims?

There is much else in the brief but this provides the essential facts and issues of the case.

I wish Mr Jones and other others well in their lawsuit, and will provide updates as I receive them.

Wednesday Evening Update

Ron Jones has let me know that they lost their case in the House of Lords, who overturned the decision of the court of appeal. This means that they will have to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.