| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| Britain | |||||
| UK court sentences Saudi prince to 20 years | |||||
| 2010-10-21 | |||||
[Bangla Daily Star] A British court sentenced a Saudi prince to at least 20 years in prison on Wednesday for beating and strangling one of his servants at a swank British hotel.
Prosecutor Jonathan Laidlaw says the prince had abused his aide in the past and that photographs stored on a mobile phone "plainly proved" that there was a "sexual element" to the abuse. The sensational case had featured days of lurid testimony, complete with video images of the shaven-headed prince brutally assaulting his aide in a hotel elevator. "No one in this country is above the law," Bean said. "It would be wrong for me to sentence you either more severely or more leniently because of your membership of the Saudi royal family."
Al Saud originally told police that he and Abdulaziz had been swigging champagne into the early hours of the morning, and that when he awoke at 3:00pm he could not rouse Abdulaziz. Jurors rejected a claim by his defense lawyer John Kelsey-Fry that the prince was guilty only of manslaughter. Since the prince's arrest, Saudi officials have said nothing about the case, and Saudi newspapers and television have not even mentioned it, a sign of how embarrassing the trial and sentencing are for the royal family. Media in the kingdom strictly avoid any discussion of the private lives of members of the royal family -- particularly of anything that casts them in a negative light.
| |||||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #2 An example of how messy this can get is from the case of the Duke of Cumberland, later Ernest Augustus I of Hanover. He was alleged to have strangled his valet and impregnated his sister while in the House of Lords, and also was suggested to want to murder the young Princess (later Queen) Victoria and become the King of England. Conveniently, his associate domain, the Principality of Hanover's, king died at just the right time, so he was shuffled off to Hanover to be made its new king, as it would be improper to try him for murder in the Lords, if he was a head of state. The various Dukes of Cumberland were a troublesome lot. One of their earlier number became known as the "Butcher of Culloden", and the last one was stripped of his title for German sympathies, in 1919. The line still survives to this day, and may request reinstatement among the noble houses of England, but have not chosen to do so. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-10-21 10:52 |
| #1 For the UK, this is actually a "sticky wicket". First of all, he is technically, at least, nobility, which means that the Queen has to be involved in some way. By a quirk in their law, all royals in her family are under her control, if she pays them. And going back to the days when many *European* royals were related, this allowed her to extrapolate this protection to other nobles visiting England. Add to that I would be surprised if any royal close to the Saudi king wouldn't be given diplomatic immunity, which may or may not cover homicide... I'm sure there are some high falutin' lawyers paid to know all these ins and outs. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-10-21 10:26 |