New look

We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From Times Online

April 10, 2008

SFO 'acted unlawfully' by dropping BAE probe

Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street

Times Online and Agencies

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) "acted unlawfully" when it dropped an investigation into bribery and corruption in arms deals between BAE systems, Europe's largest defence company, and Saudi Arabia, the High Court ruled today.

The judgment is a victory for anti-bribery pressure group Corner House Research and the Campaign Against Arms Trade who brought the case to the High Court after the former Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, announced in December 2006 that the investigation into the arms company was to be discontinued.

At the time, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, drew widespread criticism after saying that if the SFO had proceeded with its investigation, it would damage Britain’s national security. BAE was then bidding to win a contract to supply Typhoon Eurofighter jets to Saudi Arabia. That contract was signed in September 2007.

Robert Wardle, Director of the SFO, was also accused of buckling under government pressure to drop the inquiry. Mr Wardle maintained that he had acted independently and in the interests of national security.

Lord Justice Moses told the High Court today: "To preserve the integrity and independence of the judgment demanded resistance to the pressure exerted by means of a specific threat.

“That threat was intended to prevent the [SFO] director from pursuing the course of investigation he had chosen to adopt. It achieved its purpose."

Lord Justice Moses added: "No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. It is the failure of government and the defendant to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court.”

The SFO investigation arose out of BAE’s £43 billion Al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985, which provided Tornado and Hawk jets plus other military equipment.

The SFO said that it was " carefully considering the implications of the judgement and the way forward".

BAE said: “The case was between two campaign groups and the director of the SFO. It concerned the legality of a decision made by the director of the SFO. BAE Systems played no part in that decision.”

I feel the point is being lost here. Surely, the point here is that the so called the pillars of democracy, the institutions of the country are failing the people by acting unlawfully and yet they are allowed to carry on regardless so as to continue to allow unfair advantages to the rich, powerful and the politicians who alarmingly seem to be untouchable and even highly respectable as opposed to clumsy dictators in the third word countries that provoke such an outcry. The SFO, the FSA, the Law Society, â€¦â€¦ and I believe particularly the Police who may conveniently ignore such crimes of grave consequences for a large number of people in the name of â€œnot in the public interestâ€. Unless these institutions are made to work properly, I do not believe one can speak of democracy, justice or right and wrong. To me, court judgments are clear indications that these institutions are not working properly.

sinan, London,

Del,

You have missed the point, the comments are not from pompous individuals and small groups of people who don't know anything about the real world. The comments are being made because, British and International law was broken and the High Court made this very clear in their judgment. Why enact laws if the very people who introduced the laws, the politicians, can then break them when they so choose. We have in place a legal system which separates, the judiciary from the Government. Ultimately who do you trust, the law or the politicians?

Peter, London, UK

To those people who think that bribery saves jobs;

I've seen corruption in action in Malaysia, and it harms both sides.

Eventually the only thing that the selling company becomes good at is either paying bribes and/or being well-connected, and that requires only a handful of "senior" posts, mainly ex-politicians or other well-connected people, NOT thousands of technicians. Any other capabilities that the company may have had get lost in the arrogance that they don't need to do a good job to succeed. Their "core competence" becomes corruption.

For the "buying" party, they get a shoddy product, with even shoddier service, but can do nothing about it. To whom can they complain?

Ultimately both parties fail.

Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

When the individual or companies involved are more powerful than those looking into their misdominas than corrouption is not corruption.

Suresh Kumar, London, uk

Ian, 20 years ago is not very long ago when you consider war criminals are still being hounded from over 60 years ago. This a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy and worth every penny. It is BAE and the government fighting this that is costing the money. Blame them.

This action has finally put the wind up the SFO which is just as important. They are supposed to uphold the law which they failed to do. It's called accountability and that is priceless.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

Ben, London, UK

The S F O are now trying to use the Law to find a loophole to avoid having to do what they know is right. This is disgraceful.
Surely this is interfering with the course of justice.
Has this Government, or its lackeys, no shame whatsoever. It is going to spend taxpayer's money to delay doing what it is knows is right.
Its easy to understand - If there's been a fraud then -Somebody should to go to prison for it.

Richard, Kiev, Ukraine

I would be interested in an answer as to why it's even possible that a crime has been committed, when any monies involved were likely the personal assets of the Saudi Royal Family.
This is then not public money ,and who gets what is surely up to them.
So my supposition is that if they wanted an invoice for the planes at say Â£1 each, and then asked for a return of any 'overpayment given' on monies from Saudi Arabia against those invoices?? it's all still their money..isn't it.??

Keith, Dartmouth, UK

It is patently obvious that the comments of the subscribers to this article have little or no knowledge of the real world or how business or governments have to act in certain circumstances. there is a passage in the book," 2 years before the mast," which describes the situation better than I have ever heard by any of you pompous modern thinking people. Dave of cardiff is quite right in what he says,but it is obvious that he is politically motivated.attacks on the government by certain groups , have always been carried out by small numbers of people.
Now that these attacks are growing in number and venom, the situation will soon arrise when ther will be no effective government, and the next hitler to rise-up will have no trouble enslaving the people of this country. You need to take notice of history and pay some allegiance to THIS country, if you had your way the loss of the Al Yamamah would be abitter blow to thousands of workers in this country. increased taxation.

del, hemel hempstead, hertfordshire. G.B.

There is nothing pointless or ridiculous about the rule of law. If British and International law can be ignored, it leaves justice impotent.

This was a High Court judgment by two experienced and respected law lords, who followed the law and the constitutional principal of the separation of powers. It is an essential role of the courts to protect the rule of law.

The Al Yamamah contract was not 20 years ago, it started in the mid 1980's and continues through to today. It is also worth considering the point that bribery and corruption do not harm the rich and powerful.

Peter, London, UK

We must protect "thousands of high tech manufacturing jobs" at all costs. Even if that means paying out billion-dollar bungs to medieval middle eastern monarchies in order to buy those jobs in the first place. Even if it means not getting counter-terrorism intelligence from the country that brought us 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers.

We'll sell anything to protect these "thousands of high tech manufacturing jobs". We'll sell our legal system, our international reputation, whatever. Just as long as the price is right.

Christopher, Yorkshire,

Ian: little point? Depends if you believe in upholding the rule of law. This government has a long track record of not obeying its own laws and pressuring others to ignore them. The courts are the only check on this arbitrary power and the government show no signs of learning its lesson.

Stuart, Bournemouth, UK

What a ridiculous and pointless judgement. The pressure group will probably only be happy when they have succeeded in destorying thousands of high tech manufacturing jobs. It was 20 years ago. Time to move on.

Dave, Hong Kong,

Does this mean the investigation will resume?

To Ian from Norwich, the point is the rule of Law should be non negotiable and should run its course. Cutting short an investigation any investigation by political or financial inducement sets a horrific precedent and makes justice a simple extension of a rich mans wallet, bought and sold at will.

That means you Ian and me and everyone is at the mercy of the richand powerful regardless of the facts a regression to barbaric and unjust times which our ancestors fought with their lives to extract us.

And you would put us back there again Ian

Philip Palij, Ashburton, New Zealand

Unlike the Diana inquiry there is a very important legal principle at stake here; namely whether or not the process of the law should be subject to political interference.
It is clear that in this case the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, bullied the Serious Fraud Office into abandoning an investigation into serious criminal activity merely to grease the wheels of a commercial deal between BEA Systems and the Saudi government.
This kind of thing may be normal practice in a third-world banana republic but it is not, and should never be, acceptable behaviour in a mature, and supposedly law-abiding, democracy.
It was therefore perfectly reasonable for Corner House Research and the Campaign Against Arms Trade to bring this case, indeed I would go so far as to say that their action was in the national interest.

Michael, Bedford, England

If the statement made by the Lord Justice Moses is correct that "No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice" why is it that the European Courts of Justice regularly overturn our courts decisions under the pretext of 'human rights'?

John Brewer, Birmingham, West Midlands

Precisely because the decision to drop the prosecution showed that despite the seriousness of the case the SFO decided to dispense with justice. To let it go won't put the wind up these powerful and influential firms like BAE Systems; it will act as a green light under the protection of the British Government to break arms trading laws.

Andrew, Fareham, UK

The point, Ian of Norwich, is that no one is above the law. It matters not whether the alleged offences were 20 years ago.

Dave, Cardiff,

An excellent rebuff to the Government by the Judges! In a democracy, no-one is above the law, not even the Government of the day.

Gerry, Coventry,

About time too. Either the SFO can investigate crimes like these or it may as well be disbanded, and everyone can bribe anyone secure in the knowledge that tawdry types like Blair will protect their crimes in return for a well paid job later. It's time we headed back towards the moral high ground.

C Blackmore, Melksham, England

Another Labour pledge dropped. A very unethical political party.

steve tea, manchester, cheshire

Wasn't the illegal cover-up authorised by born-again Blair?

Neil, Gloucestershire, England

The SFO is found out. If they had acted properly in the past, for instance when they were given evidence of fraudulent activity in the city and the FSA's indifference to it, perhaps we would not have had the run on Northern Rock as the FSA would have been put on the right path to conduct its responsibilities properly. Unlike the man in the street, such institutions certainly seem above the law and get away with murder. As I am sure they will this time as well just as the FSA did after sleeping through events that caused such mayhem in the financial markets.

sinan, London,

When is corruption not corruption?

When it's a high-level political inter-faith dialogue.

Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

This seems to have as little point as the Diana enquiry. An over enthusiastic pressure group is going to force us to spend thousands of taxpayers money to achieve little or nothing. The deal was done 20 years ago and the SFO has done enough to put the wind up anyone doing the same thing in the future. What is the point of dragging this on.

Ian, Norwich,