Court: Dubai’s ruler abducted daughters
The ruler of Dubai abducted two of his daughters, a senior judge has ruled, as he took the highly unusual step of publishing a series of damning findings to protect two of the sheikh’s other children at the centre of a custody battle.
Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid alMaktoum was found to have waged a ‘‘campaign of fear and intimidation’’ on Princess Haya, his youngest wife, after she began an affair with a British bodyguard before she fled to the UK.
The High Court ruling yesterday could mean the 70-year-old billionaire vice president and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, who is on ‘‘respectful and friendly terms’’ with the British Royal family, and a personal friend of the Queen, has broken English criminal law and breached ‘‘internationally accepted human rights’’.
A bitter 10-month family court battle between the sheikh and Princess Haya even heard claims that the couple’s eldest child, Jalila, 12, was to be married off to Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who was linked to the assassination in Turkey of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
However, in an extensive ‘‘findings of fact’’ judgment, Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the Family Division, ruled Princess Haya’s fears about a possible forced marriage could not be substantiated and were based on ‘‘hearsay’’.
But his findings over the treatment of Princess Haya, 45, as well as two of his elder daughters, Princess Shamsa and Princess Latifa, who remain ‘‘deprived of their liberty’’, could trigger a diplomatic crisis between Britain and the UAE, a key Gulf and Middle East ally.
Those tensions are likely to be greater as Shamsa was found to have been abducted from the UK in 2000.
An investigation by Cambridgeshire police at the time was dropped due to insufficient evidence. The judge concluded that inquiry was not blocked by the ‘‘direct intervention’’ of the Foreign Office or that ‘‘any intervention of the FCO had been triggered by the father or the government of Dubai’’.
However, in a response to a Freedom of Information application made by the princess’ legal team to the Foreign Office last year, the ministry replied that ‘‘releasing information on this issue would increase public knowledge about our relations with UAE ... disclosure of this information would reduce the UK government’s ability to protect and promote UK interests through its relations with UAE which would not be in the public interest.’’
Meanwhile, McFarlane, the most senior family judge in England and Wales, also found the refusal of the sheikh, who owns Godolphin stud farm in Newmarket, to give a full account regarding the continued detention of his two daughters meant ‘‘he has not been open and honest with the court’’.
The sheikh applied to the British courts for the summary return to Dubai of his children with Princess Haya, Jalila and Zayed, seven, after his wife fled with them to London in April last year. He has now dropped the application.
Princess Haya, half-sister of King Abdullah II of Jordan, then successfully applied for them to be made wards of court. And the sheikh was yesterday blocked from keeping the Family Court’s judgments secret after the Supreme Court ruled his legal battle to try to prevent publicity was exhausted. The Daily Telegraph was among media organisations to launch a successful legal bid to secure the right to publish the court’s findings.
In a publication judgment, McFarlane said while children were not normally identified in media reports of family hearings, this was a unique case. He wrote: ‘‘The children’s mother, who throughout their life has been their sole carer, strongly favours publication.’’
The judgments were published in part to protect the youngsters amid fears the father may want them back in Dubai. Only now can Jalila and Zayed be named as being at the centre of the ongoing legal battle.
In a statement, David Haigh of the Free Latifa campaign, said: ‘‘It is now clear to see why Sheikh Mohammed did not want these judgments to be made available to the world. They show him as someone unfit to be in charge of children, let alone a state that he is an ally of the UK.
‘‘Much as it is a tragedy for the two children he has with Princess Haya, it must also be a massive relief for her family to know they can continue their childhood without the malign presence their father clearly presented.’’
Princess Haya’s barrister, Charles Geekie QC, told the court in November about a number of ‘‘appalling acts’’ perpetrated against his client, including anonymous notes being left in her bedroom, one which read: ‘‘We will take your son – your daughter is ours – your life is over.’’
The court heard that Sheikh Mohammed divorced Princess Haya without her knowledge last year, on the 20th anniversary of the death of her father, the late King Hussein of Jordan.
The judge’s ruling analyses controversial claims that the sheikh ‘‘ordered and orchestrated’’ the abduction of Shamsa while on a family holiday in England in 2000, and then detained Latifa, 32, in Dubai against her will when she attempted to flee in 2002 and 2018.
McFarlane’s findings were based on establishing something was true on ‘‘the balance of probabilities’’ used in civil law, rather than the more demanding level of something being proven in criminal law ‘‘beyond reasonable doubt.’’ In his judgment, McFarlane said Princess Haya’s allegations ‘‘boil down’’ to three claims: the father ‘‘ordered and orchestrated’’ the unlawful abduction of Shamsa from Britain, twice arranged the ‘‘forcible return’’ of Latifa to the family home before depriving the sisters of their liberty, and launching a campaign of harassment last year against her.
In conclusion, McFarlane said: ‘‘I have, for the reasons that I have now given, concluded that, save for some limited exceptions, the mother has proved her case with respect to the factual allegations that she has made.’’
In a statement, the sheikh said the judgment gave ‘‘only one side of the story’’ and insisted that his legal action had been intended to ‘‘protect the best interests and welfare of the children’’. – Telegraph Group