This site was set up to detail the judicial review of the decision to end the SFO investigation into BAE-Saudi arms deals.
Now the judicial review has finished, the site will be left online for the record. It is frozen as of February 2009.
The legal challenge
Latest on the judicial review.
SFO Saudi Arabia investigation
News on the decision to abandon the inquiry into alleged BAE corruption.
Other investigations into BAE
SFO probes into the company's dealings with other countries.
On 14-15 February, the High Court in London will hear the judicial review contesting the legality of the Serious Fraud Office's decision to terminate its investigation into alleged bribery by BAE Systems to secure a huge arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
It was over one year ago that CAAT and The Corner House wrote jointly to the UK Government arguing that the decision was unlawful and should be reversed. Now the legality of that decision will finally be reviewed in court.
CAAT and The Corner House’s lawyers will argue that the SFO Director's decision was unlawful for six overlapping reasons. We claim that the decision contravenes the OECD Anti-bribery Convention and that the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, in allowing threats/blackmail to influence his decision, did not uphold the "rule of law". Our lawyers will also argue that Tony Blair's advice was tainted by improper considerations and was an unlawful interference with the independence of prosecutors under UK and international law.
The judicial review is expected to last two days, and has become a test case concerning:
The separation of executive (government) and judicial powers is at the heart of the UK's unwritten constitution and is central to the protection of citizens' rights against the arbitrary exercise of power by the government.