The Pinochet Ruling: Lords vote puts Straw on the spot decide dictator has no immunity

Home Secretary's Dilemma

JUST WHEN Jack Straw must have been hoping it was safe to stop brooding about Augusto Pinochet, the old dictator is back to haunt him.

Yesterday's decision by the law lords puts the onus of the legal fate of General Pinochet firmly back on the Home Secretary. Whatever decision he makes, he will be subject to fierce criticism.

Having agreed by six to one that the former Chilean dictator did not enjoy immunity from prosecution, the law lords added the tricky caveat of stating that he could not be tried for alleged crimes committed before 1988, thus making the possibility of extradition to Spain much more difficult.

Nearly all of the charges in the Spanish warrant relate to the period between 1973, when General Pinochet came to power, and 1988, when Britain became a signatory to the International Torture Convention.

Also yesterday, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, the senior judge on the panel, pointedly invited Mr Straw to reconsider whether the extradition process should continue.

Within minutes of yesterday's ruling the pressure on Mr Straw had begun with Baroness Thatcher - who had tea with the general before his arrest - stating: "In these circumstances it is quite wrong to keep [General Pinochet] here. The judgment puts the matter firmly back into the hands of the Home Secretary. He should now bring to an end this damaging episode and allow Senator Pinochet to return to Chile."

That view was echoed by the former Tory chancellor Lord Lamont of Lerwick. "The law lords have drastically scaled down the charges for extradition... the Home Secretary should withdraw his authority to proceed... the whole thing is a farce - the Home Secretary should drop it," he said.

Mr Straw could be forgiven for thinking that he has already had his fair share of trouble over all this. Ever since the arrest of General Pinochet in October, he has been in the firing line from the latter's followers in Chile and Tory supporters in Britain.

There had also been more discreet pressure from other ministries worried about damage to trade links and, indirectly, from the United States government worried about details emerging of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in the coup against the former Chilean president Salvador Allende in 1973.

Many political pundits forecast that Mr Straw would take the expedient option and release General Pinochet, 83, on compassionate grounds because of his ill health. This would have meant a short period of attack from the left of his party, but not a long-term controversy.

But Mr Straw held firm and, in December, once the first Lords hearing ruled that the former dictator did not have immunity, he issued the authority to proceed with extradition. This earned him the respect of nearly all his backbenchers and civil liberties campaigners, but the bitter enmity of the Pinochet camp.

Last Sunday, the general's spin-doctor placed a story in two right-of- centre newspapers claiming that as a student Mr Straw had visited Chile and had tea with Mr Allende. It was also claimed that on his return to the United Kingdom he had taken part in anti-Pinochet demonstrations. Both episodes were denied by Mr Straw.

Yesterday afternoon, General Pinochet's lawyers returned to the High Court to apply for a judicial review over Mr Straw's original granting of the extradition authority and an application for habeas corpus.If this fails and Mr Straw decides to continue with the authority, then the extradition process would get under way.

The hearings could then take months and, if magistrates decided that General Pinochet should face trial in Spain, his legal team would have an opportunity to appeal against that. The matter then comes back to the Home Secretary, who would decide whether extradition should go ahead. He might, even then, decide to send the general home on compassionate grounds. If he said extradition should go ahead, the general has a further right of appeal.

The Home Secretary will have to weigh up the legal issues, but will be unable to ignore political repercussions.

All this is full of pitfalls for Mr Straw, whose image as the Cabinet's safe pair of hands has suffered recently. He faced controversy over leaks from the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report and his attempts to slap an injunction on the advance reporting of its contents. This week he unsuccessfully sought to block the early release of IRA prisoners. And he became the centre of debate after urging people to end the "walk-on by" society by tackling wrongdoers.

When he last considered the Pinochet case, backbenchers made clear that failure to allow proceedings could thwart any ambitions Mr Straw had for higher political office. Whether he comes under such pressure this time remains to be seen.