Corner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade Skeleton Argument
For Judicial Review hearing 14-15 February 2008

On 14 February 2008 in the High Court, lawyers for The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade presented this outline (or 'skeleton') of their arguments as to why the decision in December 2006 by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to discontinue the SFO investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent Al Yamamah arms deals with Saudi Arabia was unlawful.

The essential issue of the judicial review hearing, the skeleton argues, is whether an independent prosecutor (the Director of the Serious Fraud Office) should have allowed threats made by officials of a foreign state (particularly those allegedly complicit in the criminal conduct that the SFO was investigating) to prevail over the interests of justice in the prosecution of serious crime.

This skeleton argument outlines:

• the decision by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to terminate the BAE-Saudi investigation announced on 14 December 2006 and the rationale given publicly for it;
• a time-line of facts leading up to the decision, based on evidence released by the SFO Director;
• the six overlapping grounds on which the groups claim that this decision was unlawful:
  1. Article 5 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
  2. Saudi Arabia's international legal obligations to combat terrorism
  3. Tainted advice from government ministers
  4. Damaging national security by discontinuing the investigation
  5. Government ministers expressed a view on what decision an independent prosecutor (the Director of the Serious Fraud Office) should take
  6. Blackmail, threats and the rule of law