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 £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,