British Police Charge Nepali Army Colonel

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257488/Kumar-Lama-British-police-charge-Nepali-army-colonel-counts-torture-Himalayan-civil-war.html

Have the British Police the right to arrest a foreign national for a crime allegedly committed in another land?

[THECORBYLOON]

Yes, under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

134 A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties. .
(2)A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if— .
(a)in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence— .
(i)of a public official; or .
(ii)of a person acting in an official capacity; and .
(b)the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or acquiesces in it.

[Nibble]

^ Agreed

[jno]

does that apply solely to torture, TCL? In pursuance of some international agreement perhaps?

By and large I wouldn't want to see our gallant bobbies spending their time arresting, say, Thai tourists who spoke ill of their king.

[THECORBYLOON]

That section is headed "Torture" so it applies only to that particular offence. It appears a complaint has been made to the police and they and the CPS have taken action under that particular Act.

[sandyRoe]

Why wasn't this law used against Pinochet when he was here?

[jno]

he was arrested for something, sandyRoe, but I think Jack Straw freed him on the grounds that he had Ernest Saunders Syndrome.

[New Judge]

Well, aog, the European Convention on Human Rights (together with our own Human Rights Act) seems to provide protection for anybody, anywhere against just about any perceived injustice of which they might complain. So following logically on, I suppose our police should be empowered to go anywhere to investigate anything allegedly done by anybody. Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act (under which Col. Lama was charged) certainly seems to support this.

So basically any “public official” of any nationality allegedly committing torture anywhere is liable to arrest irrespective of whether their actions constitute an offence in the country where it allegedly took place and irrespective of whether the authorities in that country requested that person’s detention.

I find it strange that the UK police can find time to investigate alleged offences which were said to have been committed by a foreign national in a foreign country especially when it seems they have not been asked to do so by the authorities abroad. Even more so when they often say they do not have time to investigate serious crimes committed in the UK. I can understand the Nepalese being a bit peeved when one of their senior Army officers is arrested in Sussex. What I do not understand is how such a wide ranging law which clearly seems to extend powers to the police and courts that go way beyond their traditional remit ever found its way onto the Statute books.

[ABerrant]

S. 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was the UK implementation of legislation as a direct response to the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Torture, terrorism and sexual offences against children are examples of the handful of crimes deemed so egregious to humanity that the principle of universal jurisdiction applies within UK legislation, i.e. the offences are triable even when commited extraterritorially by non-citizens of the UK.

Pinochet was arrested on 35 charges...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/458990.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial

[jno]

thanks, ABerrant, I thought it must be something like that

[pdq1]

We must have turned a blind eye to what was going on round the rest of the world. To allow him and others like him to commit alleged torture crimes, although he hasn't yet been found guilty of the crime, is beyond belief. Not only that but we give them indefinate leave to remain in Britain which is an amnesty by any other name. I suppose he'll be claiming its against his human rights and we'll be stuck with another ***.

[FredPuli43]

There always were crimes at common law or by ancient statute which were triable here regardless of wherever and by whom they were committed. Piracy is one. This is now another. The general common feature of them is that they are crimes which are regarded as contrary to the well-being of all nations and to have an offfender escaping justice by simply removing himself beyond the normal jurisdiction of a state in whose territory the crime was committed, or committing the offence in international waters or by claiming that neither the victim nor he himself was a citizen of any given state nor on a vessel under the flag of any given state was repugnant.It was simpler to have him tried in any state which cared to prosecute him.

[anotheoldgit]

Thank you to THECORBYLOON, and New Judge for your explanations.

I was unaware that such a ruling existed, makes one wonder why we don't have need of a special force to make more arrests of this nature, considering the amount of foreign criminals we import into this country.