News
The Serious Fraud Office’s (SFO’s) decision to drop an investigation into suspect deals between the Saudi government and defence firm BAE has cast doubt on the UK’s ability to combat corruption, lawyers say.
In R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Lord Justice Moses ruled that the SFO acted unlawfully by dropping an investigation into allegations of bribery in the £43bn Al Yammah arms deal.
The original decision to halt the investigation was made on national security grounds after implied threats were made by the Saudis to cut security ties between the two countries.
The SFO director, the court ruled, had failed to show that all that could reasonably be done to resist the threat, had been done.
Moses LJ said: “No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice.”
Stephen Baker, a partner at Jersey law firm BakerPlatt and a practising barrister, says that the decision had a significantly adverse affect on the international standing of the UK in dealing with corruption.
He says: “The British prosecuting authorities appeared to have caved in at the first real sign of pressure from the Saudi authorities; indeed caved in to threats made by the man at the centre of the investigation.
“No attempt was made to reason with the Saudis so far as can be determined. No effort appears to have been made to explain that making such threats was not the British way. A white flag was simply raised”.
He says the High Court decision is to be welcomed by all those who share the court’s view about the importance of upholding the rule of law.
“In corruption investigations the suspects are almost always rich and powerful. They have the capacity to have banks of the best and most expensive lawyers. It is easy for investigators to be intimidated. It is a terrible example for prosecuting authorities in less developed countries to witness the UK caving in to that intimidation.”
Baker says that it is the responsibility of the court to decide on national security concerns and on whether or not to prosecute.
He says: “It was emphasised that the court must decide if such circumstances constituted a lawful response to a threat or an unlawful submission.”
He adds that while Moses LJ accepted that exceptional
circumstances may exist for such a conclusion to be reached, it was not for the director of the SFO or for the government to make such a decision.
