Queen’s Bench Divisional Court

Published April 16, 2008

Regina (Corner House Research and Another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office

Before Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan

Judgment April 10, 2008

The rule of law required that an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into bribery and corruption should be discontinued only by the independent judgment of the director of that office and not in response to a threat by a foreign power.

The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court so held when granting the claim by Corner House Research, and Campaign Against Arms Trade for judicial review of the decision of the defendant, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, dated December 14, 2006, that he was ending his office’s investigation into bribery and corruption by BAE Systems plc in relation to the al-Yamamah military aircraft contracts with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Miss Dinah Rose, QC, Mr Philippe Sands, QC and Mr Ben Jaffey for the claimants; Mr Philip Sales, QC, Mr Hugo Keith and Miss Karen Steyn for the director; Ms Clare Montgomery, QC, for BAE Systems, as an interested party.

LORD JUSTICE MOSES, giving the judgment of the court, said that people described as Saudi representatives had made a specific threat to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, that if the investigation was not stopped, contracts would not be entered into and previous close intelligence and diplomatic relationship would cease.

The power of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate a suspected offence was conferred by section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

A submission to a threat was lawful only when it was demonstrated to a court that there was no alternative course open to the decision-maker. That would protect the rule of law. Further, too ready a submission might have given rise to the suspicion that the threat was not the real ground for the decision at all, but rather that it was a useful pretext.

The defendant failed to appreciate that protection of the rule of law demanded that he should not yield to the threat. Nor was adequate consideration given to the damage to national security and to the rule of law by submission to the threat.

The claimants succeeded on the ground that the director and the government failed to recognise that the rule of law required the decision to discontinue to be reached as an exercise of independent judgment, in pursuance of the power conferred by statute.

Solicitors: Leigh Day & Co; Treasury Solicitor; Allen & Overy LLP.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers