R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet

R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Magistrate
Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet
Court	House of Lords
Full case name	R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte
Decided	25 November 1998
Citation(s)	[1998] UKHL 41, [2000] 1 AC 61[1]
Case history
Prior action(s)	Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, [1999] 38 ILM 68 (Q.B. Div'l Ct. 1998)
Subsequent action(s)	No 2 [1999] UKHL 52, [2000] 1 AC 119. No 3 [1999] UKHL 17, [2000] 1 AC 147.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Lord Slynn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Steyn, Lord Nicholls, Lord Lloyd, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Goff, Lord Hope, Lord Hutton, Lord Saville, Lord Millett, Lord Phillips

R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61,^[1] 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law.^[2]

In the first judgment, a panel of five judges ruled that Pinochet, as a former head of state, was not entitled to immunity from prosecution for the crimes of torture and could therefore be extradited to Spain to face charges.^[1] However, in a subsequent judgment that was to prove controversial, the ruling was set aside (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) (Pinochet II) following revelations that one of the Law Lords had links to one of the intervenors in the case, Amnesty International, thereby creating an appearance of bias.^[3] A new panel of judges (R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) (Pinochet III)) subsequently affirmed that Pinochet was not entitled to state immunity but that acts committed outside of British territories could only be prosecuted under national law if committed after the passage of section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (which gave UK courts universal jurisdiction over crimes of torture).^[4]