English Prosecutors Raise Sharia Law in Murder Trial of Saudi Prince

The trial of Saudi prince Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud for the murder of a servant in London took an interesting turn when the prosecution noted to the jury that, putting aside the murder allegation, Saud, 34, would have faced execution in the Kingdom for being gay. Saud allegedly murdered Bandar Abdulaziz, 32, (left) after repeated sexual assaults.

The prosecution explained that Sharia law dictates execution for homosexuals, noting that two male escorts testified that they performed sexual acts for the prince at the Landmark hotel.

The prosecutors also noted, however, that Sharia law can mean something different for Royal family members: “Whether the defendant would be prosecuted is a matter for the Saudi authorities but would to some extent depend on the wishes of his family. The defendant could be at risk from members of his own family who may feel that he has brought shame on the family. He could also be at risk from members of the victim’s family, although as he is a member of the Saudi royal family this risk would be reduced.”

Source: Google

18 thoughts on “English Prosecutors Raise Sharia Law in Murder Trial of Saudi Prince”

  1. Jailed for life: The gay Saudi prince who beat his manservant to death in a London hotel room

    A gay Saudi prince has been jailed for life today with a minimum term of 20 years for beating and strangling his servant to death in the culmination of a campaign of ‘sadistic’ abuse.

    Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud was found guilty at the Old Bailey of murdering Bandar Abdulaziz in a ‘brutal’ assault at their five-star hotel suite.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321860/Gay-Saudi-prince-pictured-happily-manservant-beat-death.html#ixzz12u6lGoQg

  2. Latest. He’s just been found guilty.
    Interesting to find what the sentence will be.
    If I were him I’d go to prison in the UK and pull all available strings to get asylum status. Hardly likely, as those sentenced for serious crimes usually get sent home as soon as sentence is completed.
    At the last count there wer over 1100 princes in Saudi Arabia, so one of them “dropping off the map” would not be such big news there.

  3. I would think that the Saudis would want this guy to “drop off the map.” If he were to return to Saudi Arabia and be murdered by a relative, that would make international news – unwanted attention for the Saudis. If he were to do time in the UK and then be granted asylum there, it would bring unwanted negative attention to the UK.

    My wild, unsubstantiated guess is that he is convicted, does some time in a UK prison. While that is going on, behind-the-scenes diplomatic work is done to find a third-party nation where he can be shipped off into obscurity, on the condition that the charming prince keeps quiet and out of trouble. I assume that a hundred thousand dollars a month for a house in some out-of-the-way place, some cars, some domestic staff and an “entertainment” budget would be inconsequential to his family, and well worth the price, from their perspective, to make this all go away.

    Then again, who knows. Perhaps he will be treated to a very long, very slow camel excursion starting in Riyadh, and heading south east across the central desert of Saudi Arabia…

  4. Bandar Abdulaziz (32) was so worn down by the “sadistic” abuse he had suffered that he “let the defendant kill him”, jurors were told.

    Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud is accused of murdering Mr Abdulaziz in February at the central London hotel room they shared.

    Jonathan Laidlaw QC, prosecuting, said they had a “master-servant” relationship in which the prince abused his aide for his “own personal gratification”.

    Mr Laidlaw said the victim’s injuries showed the assault leading to his murder “was a really terrible, a really brutal attack”.

    He added: “So worn down by the violence, so subservient and submissive had Bandar become that he was incapable of any effective resistance.

    “He was killed without apparently ever having fought back because the defendant was completely unharmed, without any mark at all, when he was examined at the police station. Bandar appears to have let the defendant kill him.”


  5. I have to say I don’t think I really understand Dr. Turley’s initial posting or some of the comments. I can’t see anything even remotely hypocritical in the prosecutor’s observation. She was making the jury aware of what sid considered a salient fact that might help them to determine the verdict. I’d expect a competent prosecuting attorney in an American criminal court to make a similar observation, subject to the different rules of court procedure. It certainly isn’t a point of law, but rather an observation about the implications of realities external to the court.

    I don’t understand the Red Queen reference. Nobody’s running to keep up. Perhaps the commenter meant the Queen of Hearts from the earlier Alice book. The latter is famous for screaming “off with his head” with little or no provocation.

  6. For the less enlightened the “Red Queen” would and could have no input or comment on such a situation, regardless of what royal status the victim or perpetratopr may or may not have

    IMO TS reads it absolutely spot on when he says

    “The context of this statement by the prosecution has been played down or incompletely understood by the press, unfortunately. The observation about Saudi law by prosecuting barrister Bobbie Cheema speaks to motive, and tends to shed light on the decision of the defence not to call the prince, who denies that he is gay, to testify.”


    According to AFP, prosecutor Bobbie Cheema told England’s Old Bailey central criminal court Thursday that “homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia and carries the death penalty, which is still applied in some cases.

    “The country in which any alleged acts took place would have little bearing on the likelihood of prosecution as the Saudi legal system is based on the sharia law, which is considered to be universal.”

    Cheema said prosecution would be a matter for the Saudi authorities and that family members can sometimes play a role in determining what punishment is carried out. Gay Saudis have previously been granted asylum in Britain on the basis they could face prosecution and potentially the death penalty — or harm if they returned”

    Saud Bin Abdulaziz Bin Nasir al Saud, has already admitted to beating Bandar Abdullah Abdulaziz to death and he also admitted to having abused him for weeks.

    But he has pleaded not guilty to murder, and he claims allegations that the two were lovers are false.

    His lawyer John Kelsey-Fry said the Saudi law as described to the court would only apply “if it were the case that the defendant had engaged in homosexuality”.

    I don’t see anything in this by way of “an incredible mishmash of contradictory and hypocritical cultural values” rather IMO a competent prosecutor attempting to lay the facts of the case before the court as it would seem in this mans world that the question of his sexuality carries far more relevance than the actual killing does.

    The general consensus in the UK is that the murdering little prince is Damned whichever way he turns.

  7. “Where’s the Red Queen when you need her?”

    I would say she is most definitely already involved…..

  8. He should have gone to Sri Lanka.

    [The Burmese ambassador in Sri Lanka in 1979 shot his wife as she got out of the car after seeing a player in a night-club band of whom she was enamoured. As recalled by Gerald Hensley, then Vice-Dean of the Diplomatic Corps in Sri Lanka; Hensley was based in Singapore and accredited from New Zealand as High Commissioner to Sri Lanka as well:

    The next morning the neighbours in Cinnamon Gardens (Colombo) were surprised to see the ambassador stacking wood on the back lawn and, connoisseurs of cremation, quickly grasped that he was building a pyre. When the police were called the ambassador opened the metal front gates just enough to say that there was no trouble and to remind them that his house was Burmese territory. Then he went back to work. The houses around his long back garden were now alive with fascinated spectators as he emerged with the body of his wife, placed it on the pyre and set it alight. He was well connected at home but after an awkward interval he was recalled]


  9. If there was ever a definition of “being between a rock and a hard place” I would say this is it.

  10. This sucks either way….depends on if it blows up in his face here or there…apparently…pickled in the other option….

  11. Another issue would be the fact that Saudi Arabia has a death penalty. Normally the courts don’t permit somebody to be deported to a country where they are liable to be executed. The prince could also apply for asylum and by any measure he would qualify, though it is conceivable that his ability to apply at this point is limited.

  12. Perhaps needless to say, this is a very delicate situation. In the UK the penalty for murder is mandatory life imprisonment, which would normally lead to release on parole in something on the order of 10 years.

    For diplomatic reasons the British and Saudi governments might normally prefer to arrange for a prince to serve his sentence in Saudi Arabia, perhaps under house arrest, but I’m just speculating here.

    If the prince returns home, however, it is quite likely that his life would be in considerable danger, even from members of his own rather large family. There is a rather bad history here. Being a member of the royal family doesn’t really protect you much.


  13. The context of this statement by the prosecution has been played down or incompletely understood by the press, unfortunately. The observation about Saudi law by prosecuting barrister Bobbie Cheema speaks to motive, and tends to shed light on the decision of the defence not to call the prince, who denies that he is gay, to testify.

  14. What an incredible mishmash of contradictory and hypocritical cultural values. Where’s the Red Queen when you need her?

Comments are closed.