The Law of Nations
  • Home
  • About
  • Public International Law
  • Private International Law
  • Arbitration
  • Podcasts
  • Contact Us
Human Rights 0

Could Trump be prosecuted for torture in the UK?

Jonathan Grimes considers the question of UK jurisdiction over foreign torture

By Jonathan Grimes · On February 1, 2017


Of President Trump’s many controversial initial moves in the White House – including his recent ban on travel to the US by nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries – his support for torture in interrogation is the most shocking.

Previous US administrations sought to argue that certain techniques, such as waterboarding, were not torture, on the basis that they did not reach the required level of pain and suffering, even if that was a justification with which most would disagree.

Trump has a different view. While the new president also does not think that waterboarding amounts to torture, for him, that is not the point – because he favours going much further and adopting techniques “a hell of a lot worse”. His belief is that “torture works”.

This begs the question: could Trump ever face criminal prosecution in the UK or elsewhere for his support of behaviour recognised to be a crime by most countries in the world?

The UN Convention against Torture requires all parties to the convention – which include both the US and the UK – to create a criminal offence within their domestic legislation covering torture. In the UK that offence is found in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

it is important that the UK can – and has – invoked universal jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals for torture in the past

The convention also requires that the offence should be one of universal jurisdiction. This means that a person who orders torture can be prosecuted in one country even though the act itself occurred elsewhere. For example, last year a Nepalese officer, Kumar Lama, was prosecuted – and ultimately acquitted – in England for torture said to have taken place in Nepal in 2005. There have been similar cases elsewhere in Europe.

As US president, Trump enjoys personal immunity from any criminal prosecution outside the US – but only for the duration of his presidency. After that, Trump would be criminally liable for certain categories of crime committed by him during his presidency. The case against Augusto Pinochet established that there is no immunity for a former head of state accused of ordering torture.

Trump’s support for torture – as currently expressed – is insufficient to create criminal liability in English law. An executive order to the effect that waterboarding or other torture techniques should resume, however, might be sufficient to make him criminally liable for such behaviour were it to occur.

In reality, no doubt to the disappointment of some of his detractors, it is unlikely that Trump will be appearing at the Old Bailey charged with torture in the years ahead. But it is important that it is a legal possibility; and it is important that the UK can – and has – invoked universal jurisdiction to prosecute foreign nationals for torture in the past.

This, rather than the language of diplomacy, should underpin the UK’s response to President Trump’s pronouncements.

A version of this article was first published in The Brief on 31 January 2017

Jonathan Grimes

Jonathan Grimes

Jonathan is a criminal lawyer specialising in serious and complex criminal cases. His practice includes all areas of financial services and business crime as well as health and safety and related areas. He also continues to advise in a wide variety of other criminal law matters with a particular emphasis on cases with an international aspect, including war crimes and related work. He is the immediate past Co-Chair and Advisory Board Member of the IBA War Crimes Committee. https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/our-people/jonathan-grimes




You Might Also Like

  • Human Rights

    The Matrix Law Pod Episode 12: The Magnitsky Method – Hitting Human Rights Abusers Where it Hurts

  • Human Rights

    The Matrix Law Pod Episode 11: Building Back Better

  • Human Rights

    The Matrix Law Pod Episode 10: Past, Present, Future – Transitional Justice for Turbulent Times

No Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mailing List

Sign up to our Mailing List

Categories

  • Arbitration
  • Book Review
  • Brexit
  • Business and Human Rights
  • Comparative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Law
  • Environmental Law
  • From the editors
  • Human Rights
  • International Trade
  • News Round-up
  • Podcasts
  • Private International Law
  • Public International Law
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • November 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016

From Twitter

  • New post: why depriving Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship violates international law. https://t.co/I51X5qT8um… https://t.co/FF0p3hqE8Q

© Matrix Chambers. All rights reserved. | Accessibility | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy