Tag Archives: Controversy

UK Lawyers: “Don’t put Spotlight on Dubai”

DubaiUK lawyers have warned against putting the spotlight on Dubai as an international centre of arbitration. The comments come ahead of a seminar due to take place next month with the intention of promoting Dubai as a place to settle legal disputes.

The seminar is being developed with the involvement of the British Irish Commercial Bar Association (BICBA), cooperating with the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the University of Dubai. David Casement QC, the chair of the BICBA, is also among the event’s speakers. The goal of the event is to promote Dubai and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a whole as a “world centre in arbitration,” as well as to host discussions and generate proposals on how this position can be strengthened and how the Dubai legal system could develop in the future.

However, a number of legal professionals in the UK, including both solicitors and barristers, have criticised the aim of promoting Dubai as an international centre of justice. They say that there are serious problems with the legal system of the UAE, and that this kind of spotlight should not be shone on the region until they are resolved.

Critics of the seminar and its message point out that the High Court in England and Wales has ruled against allowing individuals to be extradited from the UK to Dubai. The grounding for this decision and for their criticisms, they say, is that the Dubai justice system has a history of problems such as corruption, violations of human rights, and denying access to justice.

Much of the criticism has come from Detained in Dubai, which is based in the UK but specialises in the civil and criminal justice systems of the UAE. The organisation described the seminar as “fuelling propaganda that Dubai has an equivelently competent justice system.” A partner at the organisation, non-practising solicitor David Haigh, said “I have practised law in both the UK and the UAE but unfortunately, I myself have first-hand experience of the legal system in Dubai. I was wrongfully imprisoned, arbitrarily detained.”

Haigh continued: “At present, until the UAE judicial system undergoes significant reform, the DIAC can by no means, be considered a just, independent, safe or modern dispute resolution centre.”

Doughty Street Chambers barrister Ben Cooper was also critical, saying that he “would not recommend” the BICBA help to portray Dubai as a centre of dispute resolution. He went on to say that “The UAE needs to address and remedy judicial failings before it should be considered as a possible legal jurisdiction of choice.”

Australia’s Channel 7 Loses Legal Battle After “Racist” Broadcast

Australian TV broadcaster Channel Seven has lost a three-year-long legal battle against the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The battle finally came to an end after Channel Seven lost an appeal in the federal court and was ordered to pay the legal costs of ACMA.

The legal battle stems from a 2011 documentary broadcast detailing the indigenous Brazilian Suruwaha people. The broadcast has been described as a “racist portrayal” of the tribe which violated the television code of practice‘s requirement that broadcasts be fair, balanced, and factually correct. The broadcast would also, according to federal court judge Justice Buchanan, “be likely to provoke or perpetuate intense dislike and serious contempt of and for the Suruwaha tribe and its members.”

The broadcast featured adventurer and writer Paul Raffaele accompanying journalist Tim Noonan through the Amazon. In the program, Noonan and Raffaele alleged that the tribe carry out “one of the worst human rights violations in the world” by encouraging the killing of disabled children “in the most gruesome way possible.” They claimed that disabled children and those born to single mothers were fed, while still living, to wild beasts by the tribe.

Complaints about both the factual accuracy and the tone of these reports were first raised by Survival International, an international organisation that advocates for the rights of tribal people. The organisation formally complained to ACMA after Channel Seven did not correct or retract the many “errors and distortions” that they had highlighted in the broadcast’s allegations of child murder. Channel Seven described the claims made by Survival International as “nonsense” and defended the broadcast, but ACMA found that the allegations of routine child killing were in breach of factual accuracy requirements. Channel Seven challenged this decision through a Judicial Review, but the challenge proved unsuccessful as the court upheld the original judgement.

Stephen Corry, director of Survival International, compared the broadcast to “19th-century colonialist scorn for ‘primitive savages'” designed to “suggest that they don’t deserve any rights.”

The Suruwaha tribe was formed from an amalgamation of members from other tribes who fled the devastation wreaked on the region by global demand for rubber. Members of the tribe who have seen the broadcast are said to be angry. Members of the tribe have also claimed that they were asked to remove their everyday, Western-style clothing for the cameras, and in the final broadcast this had the effect of making them look more primitive and less connected to the outside world.