The claimant’s action against the Ministry of the Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for damages for alleged torture and unlawful imprisonment in Saudi Arabia was struck out on the grounds of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978.
It would be contrary to the exercise of the statutory power and unrealistic to expect the home secretary to investigate each statement relied on to issue a certificate under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s.21 with a view to deciding whether circumstances in which the statement was obtained involved torture, thereby breaching European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.3.
Where evidence before a parole board came from a source who would be at risk were his identity to be disclosed to the prisoner, the board had an inherent power to devise procedures to protect that source, including a direction that his evidence should be withheld from the prisoner or from his legal representatives. The board also had the power, through the specially appointed advocate procedure, to mitigate any unfairness to the prisoner caused by the withholding of such evidence.
A blanket policy of retention and use by the police of DNA samples and fingerprint evidence after a suspect had been cleared of the offence that gave rise to the collection of such evidence was compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8 and Art.14.
The rule of absolute immunity from suit applied to complaints made to an employment tribunal about unlawful discriminatory conduct in the course of an internal police disciplinary hearing.