The right to a fair trial, articulated under Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights, is a universal principle. However in a ruling on Thursday the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled that Article 6 did not apply because Brunei’s constitution was established prior the European Convention.

Five of Britian’s top law lords who handed down the judgement on Thursday ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest Brunei’s judges are capable of bias and that the prince would not receive a fair trial. Their decision comes despite the fact the Sultan is head of the judicial system and has changed the constitution to state he “Can Do No Wrong.” While heads of state are often immune to the law by virtue of their status, even the Queen can be called as witness in criminal proceedings. The Sultan however has elevated himself to a god-like status and is above civil or criminal proceedings.

Article 6 of the convention includes the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. Under the Sultan’s rule however all judicial proceedings are undertaken in camera out of the public eye. In conditions where Brunei’s Court of Justice is answerable only to the Sultan, fair trial rights cannot possibly apply.

While there can be little sympathy for the profligate Prince, who must now repay £3 billion, their decision affects Brunei’s fundamental right to fair trial.

Brunei’s population live under an exceptional case of an absolute monarchy. There is no elected representative of the people. The Sultan is chief of police and head of the justice system. He is Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Finance Minister, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.

He is also head of broadcast and information services. There is no free media in Brunei, and has changed the constitution to declare: “No person shall publish or reproduce in Brunei or elsewhere any part of proceedings . . . that may have the effect of lowering or adversely affecting directly or indirectly the position, dignity, standing, honour, eminence or sovereignty of His Majesty the Sultan.” The internet is scanned and censored. Those voicing their dissent are sought out and sent to prison for life- often under a death sentence.

The appeal was brought to the United Kingdom’s Privy Council by virtue of Brunei’s common law status. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is independent and contrived of Britain most esteemed law lords, though the Privy Council also represents every member of the Cabinet from Gordon Brown to David Cameron.

Could the judicial decision to back the Sultan constitute a case of realpolitik; policy based on political affiliations as opposed to moral justice? Brunei is a key investor in the UK’s financial markets. Brunei also annually renews oil extraction agreements with the UK, with Shell Oil as the major beneficiary. Britain in turn protects Brunei’s autocracy with British Army Gurkhas: first dispatched in 1962 during Brunei’s revolt against the Sultan’s father- they have remained there ever since.

The decision could have marked the beginning of the end of Brunei’s autocratic rule however the Judicial Committee maintained the status quo. It appears that the Sultan won on a technicality. According to the judgement, because the Prince’s fair trial appeal was hypothetical, there was not enough evidence to suggest Brunei’s judges were incapable of fairness. The Prince lost on hypothetical grounds though Brunei’s reality is one of dictatorship in which the royal family is squandering the nation’s coffers.

Well documented are tales of the Prince’s lavish spending, his jewel encrusted birdcages, hairdressing bills topping $1million and his yachts named Tits 1 and 2. More significantly however during appeal proceedings it emerged that the Sultan’s annual spending exceeds Brunei’s gross domestic product.

Never before documented is the fact the Sultan is actually funding both legal sides in the argument. The Sultan has a worldwide freezing order on the Prince’s assets including banks accounts on the basis that any money Jefri has, he ultimately derived from stealing from Brunei Investment Agency. However, the Sultan has approved his brother to be able to use over $200million to fund lawyers to perpetuate the legal dispute and prolong it.

According to the economic experts, it is in the interests of the Sultan to prolong the court battle so that he can appear to be upholding democracy back in Brunei. But the financial interests of his people are of little consequence as the Sultan has already spent over £1 billion legal fees in trying to recoup £3 billion.

In turn the Prince is blaming his legal advisors for the missing billions. Two British barristers are the eighth to be sued by the Prince who claims the couple fraudulently sold his US property and pocketed $23 million for themselves. The case against Faith and Tom Derbyshire was recently thrown out of court in New York as it was proved there was no sale at all, but rather that the Prince instructed the couple to transfer his property to a secret holding company to prevent the proceeds of the sale going to his brother the Sultan.

During two High Court cases in the UK last year, in cases heard by Judge Mackie and Judge Blackburne, the Prince admitted to having misled the court which is a criminal offence. However in yet another legal compromise -the Prince received no criminal penalties.

In the grand scheme of international human rights abuses, Brunei isn’t much considered. Its population receive free health care, free education, and they pay no taxes- which perhaps isn’t a bad trade off for living under a dictatorship. No doubt the Germans thought the same.

According to Brunei experts, the Sultan is upholding his battle against his brother in anticipation of the nation's oil reserves running out. The Sultan is keen to appear to be introducing democracy by trying to recoup these missing billions. In doing so the battle revealed the Sultan’s spending to be greater than Brunei’s GDP, although no free media means there is little chance that this will spark riots in the streets of Brunei.

But what the battle may have sparked is the beginning of a democratic process in which Brunei’s royal family will increasingly have to account for their spending.

Perhaps when Brunei’s oil reserves finally run out the voice of dissent will rise and true democracy will finally take seed. But for now, and with thanks to Britain’s Highest Court of Appeal, the dictatorial status quo remains shamefully intact.