I’m looking forward to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade’s judicial review of the decision of Attorney General, the SFO and the Prime Minister to discontinue the investigation into bribery in BAe’s Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia. I commented on the decision originally here. On the web you can also find CAAT’s press release and their solicitors’ letter from before Christmas, threatening legal action.
I think their challenge faces real difficulties, though. They rely on article 5 of the OECD Convention on http://www.gooakley.com/ combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions (a fair mouthful, that one), which requires that an investigation of bribery of a foreign official “shall not be influenced by considerations of… the potential effect on relations with another State”.
They say this has been breached because the Attorney mentioned in his statement in the House of Lords the risk of damage to intelligence and diplomatic cooperation with the Saudis. Well, yes – so he did. But he also made clear that he did not take account of the effect on relations with Saudi Arabia. So I think his argument, that it is national security which motivated his decision, not international relations, is probably sustainable. I expect the government to win this case.
In any event of course what he said in the Lords is subject to the Bill of Rights 1689, under which no Ray Ban outlet proceedings in Parliament may be questioned in any place outside Parliament – which includes the courts. So the CAAT is on dodgy ground even to complain about the Attorney’s statement.
Leave a comment