Britain powerless in face of Saudi threats

The Guardian 16.02.2008
Britain powerless in face of Saudi threats, court told

· Judges sceptical about efforts to resist pressure
· BAE review told ministers entitled to ignore treaty

The British government was powerless to resist the Saudi threats that forced it to close down the BAE corruption investigation, its lawyers insisted in the high court yesterday.


Britain powerless in face of Saudi threats, court told

· Judges sceptical about efforts to resist pressure
· BAE review told ministers entitled to ignore treaty

The British government was powerless to resist the Saudi threats that forced it to close down the BAE corruption investigation, its lawyers insisted in the high court yesterday.

The claim met with scepticism from Lord Justice Moses, who is trying the case along with Mr Justice Sullivan. He pointed out that the government had apparently made no attempt to resist such "unlawful" Saudi threats or to deter their behaviour.

Philip Sales, QC for the crown, said the government could not "magic away" the threats from the Saudi ruling clan.

But the judge said: "Every time a hostage is taken or a ransom demanded, the answer by the government is: 'We do not yield to threats'."

The high court has heard unchallenged allegations that it was Prince Bandar, the alleged beneficiary of £1bn in secret payments from the arms giant BAE, who threatened to cut off intelligence on terrorists if the investigation into him and his family was not stopped.

Investigators said they were given to understand there would be "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they carried on delving into the payments.

The government argued yesterday that these threats were so "grave" and put Britain's security in such "imminent" threat that the head of the Serious Fraud Office had no option but to shut down his investigation immediately.

On the second day and final day of the judicial review into the decision, which is being brought by anti-corruption campaigners, the judges repeatedly questioned these assertions.

Moses said: "What you are saying is that the law is powerless to protect our own sovereignty - the law cannot be deployed as a weapon to protect the sovereignty of this country."

The judge said: "Your answer is, yes, it is powerless. No lawyer or court can protect one of the essential features of sovereignty, which is control over one's own domestic criminal law system."

Asked if that meant nothing could be done to resist this kind of threat "from a powerful foreign state", Sales replied: "Correct - we cannot compel Saudi Arabia to adopt a different stance."

Moses said it was "curious" that ministers were not allowed constitutionally to interfere in criminal investigations, but "there was nothing that could be done" when it was Saudi Arabia.

This meant, he said, that the decision to terminate the inquiry was "out of the control" of the British government.

Sales said the government was entitled to ignore an OECD anti-corruption treaty when Britain's security was in jeopardy. Moses responded : "It is no good just waving the flag of national security. If (its use) is so wide, it undermines the treaty." Any government could stop bribery prosecutions on the grounds of national security, Sullivan added. He asked if that "drove a coach and horses through the treaty."

The investigation was stopped after Tony Blair, then prime minister, intervened following sustained lobbying by the Saudis and BAE, who wanted to preserve a lucrative arms contract. In a long, "exceptional" letter to his attorney-general Lord Goldsmith, Blair said he was concerned, among other things, about this contract to sell Typhoon warplanes.

Governments signed up to the OECD treaty are forbidden from stopping investigations for commercial reasons.

Sullivan intervened to say that Whitehall documents released to the court showed that issues other than purely national security had been considered. He told Sales that the government was making "bland statements" and refusing to admit the reality.

Moses expressed concern about ministers apparently abandoning the Shawcross convention, which is supposed to prevent politicians interfering in criminal cases.

Under it, the law officers are allowed to consult ministers about the public interest implications of a prosecution decision. But ministers are not allowed to lobby for a particular decision.

Campaigners allege that Blair over-stepped the mark when he put "irresistible pressure" on the SFO.

The government argued it was permissible for the prime minister to express a forceful view that there was "a very clear case" for ending the investigation.

The judges said they would give their ruling as soon as possible.

About this article

This article appeared in the Guardian on Saturday February 16 2008 on p13 of the UK news section. It was last updated at 00:02 on February 16 2008.


* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008