Hammond criticises judge for stripping diplomatic immunity from Saudi billionaire

This is rather comical and shows how much of control the influence of the Saudi regime have on our politicians and foreign secretaries. Hammond criticized a judge for stripping diplomatic immunity from Saudi billionaire whose his wife wants to divorce herself from the billionaire who you going to call defend the Saudi billionaire?

Hammond criticises judge for stripping diplomatic immunity from Saudi billionaire

Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, has taken the highly unusual step of criticising a high court judge’s decision to strip diplomatic immunity from a Saudi billionaire facing divorce proceedings from his estranged wife. Last month Christina Estrada, a former Pirelli calendar model, won the right to fight for a share of Sheikh Walid Juffali’s £4bn fortune. The couple split up following 13 years of marriage.

In an unusual step, the Foreign Office submitted an opinion from Tim Eicke QC backing the Saudi billionaire. It said the judge had made a mistake in attempting to decide whether Juffali had been a diplomat.

Sickening.

a reply to: TaleDawn

It just proves the age old adage...money talks...billions absolutely shouts it's head off.

I made that last bit up...but we all get the point.

This is more about precedents being set and other countries retaliating. Britain is used for these cases because the legal system is trusted, but think about ome legal systems elsewhere that are less (ahem) transparent.

a reply to: TaleDawn

First, our law systems are trusted for two main reasons. First, our legal system allows for no punitive and immediate remedial measures, like the lopping off of certain limbs or digits. Second of all, it has known loopholes and functions on money exclusively. If you have access to wealth, power, or are a member of a demography which has a protected characteristic, you auto win nine times out of ten.

If you have none of these things, then you might as well just set fire to all your paperwork, stick your middle finger up at the judge, and pull the flesh off your opponents face, for all that your effort will get you.

I say Hammond is part of the problem, not the solution.

originally posted by: TaleDawn
This is rather comical and shows how much of control the influence of the Saudi regime have on our politicians and foreign secretaries. Hammond criticized a judge for stripping diplomatic immunity from Saudi billionaire whose his wife wants to divorce herself from the billionaire who you going to call defend the Saudi billionaire?

Hammond criticises judge for stripping diplomatic immunity from Saudi billionaire

Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, has taken the highly unusual step of criticising a high court judge’s decision to strip diplomatic immunity from a Saudi billionaire facing divorce proceedings from his estranged wife. Last month Christina Estrada, a former Pirelli calendar model, won the right to fight for a share of Sheikh Walid Juffali’s £4bn fortune. The couple split up following 13 years of marriage.

In an unusual step, the Foreign Office submitted an opinion from Tim Eicke QC backing the Saudi billionaire. It said the judge had made a mistake in attempting to decide whether Juffali had been a diplomat.

Sickening.

First time in history a super citizen has a been taken down by a court. The judge should get the nobel peace prize and the nobel prise for jurism, if there is one

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: TaleDawn

It just proves the age old adage...money talks...billions absolutely shouts it's head off.

I made that last bit up...but we all get the point.

money talks...billions absolutely shouts it's head off.

gotta love that

Sounds like justice to me. The Saudi princes get away with murder. Let him face consequences.

a reply to: paraphi

Britain's legal system is trusted and has a good reputation... but I don't think it deserves either of those accolades, as in reality, it seems ... just slightly less corrupt than the legal system in the States.

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: paraphi

Britain's legal system is trusted and has a good reputation... but I don't think it deserves either of those accolades, as in reality, it seems ... just slightly less corrupt than the legal system in the States.

Well summary execution in the streets is mostly frowned upon here.

But then again we like to cover over high profile pedos.....

Swings and roundabouts

So who is going to win in this tussle, the executive or judiciary branches of government?

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
Britain's legal system is trusted and has a good reputation... but I don't think it deserves either of those accolades, as in reality, it seems ... just slightly less corrupt than the legal system in the States.

How so? Do you have some actual examples of how the UK legal system is corrupt, or was this just some throw-away remark based on a lack of knowledge and a particular worldview? The judiciary in England and Wales is independent of the executive. It often confounds the executive.

The problem is that all the Saudi royal family(and there are lots of them) want to claim diplomatic immunity for very different reasons. Let's be clear ONLY diplomats in a foreign country can have diplomatic immunity.
This guy was claiming immunity for being a representative of a maritime organization, not even Saudi related.
International law (and that what it comes under) dictates you have to be a member of your countries international delegation, to a certain level ie, if you just clean the toilets in your embassy you are not on a surficient level to get diplomatic immunity.
This is not some trite issue and the results could be far reaching for all countries foreign diplomats. This guy is just debasing those principles of diplomatic protection.