Permanent People's Tribunal Session on Human Rights, Fracking and Climate Change
Alberto Acosta Espinosa, Lilia América Albert Palacios, Andrés Barreda, Upendra Baxi, Gill H. Boehringer, Maria Fernanda Campa, Louis Kotzé, Larry Lohmann, Francesco Martone, and Antoni Pigrau Solé
In 2018, the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal -- established in 1979 as a continuation of the Russell Tribunals on Vietnam (1966-67) and Latin America (1973-76) -- was requested by community organizations and academic groups to formulate an Advisory Opinion on fracking and other unconventional oil and gas extraction techniques.
In writing their Opinion, the judges considered material from two years of investigations and regional tribunals in a number of countries. The final session heard summary testimonies via a virtual platform on 14-18 May 2018.
UK's Crown Prosecution Service accused of failing to freeze corruptly obtained assets
The High Court has lifted a secrecy order imposed on a 2013 legal challenge by The Corner House of a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to freeze some $215 million in alleged proceeds of crime from a corrupt Nigerian oil deal.
but withdraw legal challange
The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade
Campaign Against Arms Trade and The Corner House withdrew their application for a judicial review of the 5 February 2010 decision by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to enter a controversial plea bargain settlement with BAE Systems and to drop "conspiracy to corrupt" charges against a BAE former agent. They concluded they were unable to appeal against the 22 March 2010 refusal by a High Court judge to grant permission to bring the legal challenge. Nonetheless, both CAAT and The Corner House will continue to raise questions about the settlement and the process leading up to it.
to apply for Judicial Review of SFO-BAE-Tanzania settlement
Honourable Mr Justice Collins
On 22 March 2010, a High Court judge, the Honourable Mr Justice Collins, refused to grant permission to Campaign Against Arms Trade and The Corner House to bring a judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office February decision to make a plea bargain settlement with BAE Systems and to drop "conspiracy to corrupt" charges against a BAE former agent.
Serious Fraud Office and BAE Systems
After CAAT and The Corner House had submitted their application on 26 February 2010 for a judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office decision to make a plea bargain settlement with BAE Systems and to drop "conspiracy to corrupt" charges against a BAE former agent, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and BAE Systems submitted their versions of the facts and legal grounds to contest the application, arguing that permission to bring the review should not be given.
The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade
The High Court granted an injunction prohibiting the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) from taking any further steps in its February 2010 plea bargain settlement with BAE Systems. The injunction is in force until the Court decides whether or not to give permission to Campaign Against Arms Trade and The Corner House to apply for a judicial review of the settlement.
PRESS RELEASE
Judicial review papers lodged
The Corner House and CAAT
Lawyers acting for Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House lodged papers on 26 February 2010 at the High Court in London asking for an injunction to delay the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) from seeking court approval for its controversial plea bargain settlement with BAE Systems pending the outcome of a Judicial Review. They lodged papers requesting the Judicial Review at the same time.
against UK Serious Fraud Office's BAE settlement
CAAT and The Corner House
Lawyers acting on behalf of Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House issued a letter to the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) laying out their intention to request a judicial review of the 5 February 2010 decision by the SFO to enter a plea agreement with BAE. The basis for the legal challenge is that the SFO failed properly to apply prosecution guidance (including its own guidance). In particular, the plea agreement reached fails to reflect the seriousness and extent of BAE's alleged offending, which includes corruption and bribery, and to provide the court with adequate sentencing powers.
following up OECD Phase2bis report
solicitors Leigh Day & Co, and Export Credits Guarantee Department
This exchange of letters between the UK's export credit agency and lawyers acting for The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade revealed that BAE Systems had cancelled all its public insurance for its arms sales to Saudi Arabia with effect from 1 September 2008. These sales have been underwritten by the agency for more than two decades and accounted for half its portfolio.
In BAE-SFO-Saudi judicial review
Lord Bingham, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger, Baroness Hale and Lord Brown
On 30 July 2008, five Law Lords overturned the High Court's ruling of April 2008 when they stated that the SFO Director had acted lawfully in stopping a corruption investigation into BAE Systems' arms deals with Saudi Arabia when faced with a threat to national security. They stated that the Director's discretion to drop criminal proceedings extended legally to taking account of the threat uttered by Saudi Arabia that it would withdraw diplomatic and intelligence cooperation with the UK if the investigation continued, even though the threat was "ugly and obviously unwelcome".
JUSTICE
This is a submission to the House of Lords in response to an appeal by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office from the independent human rights and law reform organisation, JUSTICE, which is the British section of the International Commission of Jurists. The submission addresses the domestic legal principles by which the legality of a prosecutor's decision to halt a criminal investigation in response to a threat should be assessed, and the relevant international obligations at issue, the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
in House of Lords
Serious Fraud Office
This is the Printed Case appeal to the House of Lords by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) against a High Court ruling on 10 April 2008 that the SFO acted unlawfully in December 2006 when it stopped its investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
Ann Feltham
This second witness statement from Campaign Against Arms Trade updates the House of Lords on official investigations by the US and Swiss authorities into alleged bribery and corruption by BAE Systems in relation to the Al-Yamamah military aircraft contracts.
on the 'constitutionality' of draft Constitutional Renewal Bill
Jeffrey Jowell QC
This 'legal opinion' from a top UK constitutional lawyer concludes that a clause in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (published 25 March 2008) effectively preventing judicial review of a decision to halt a prosecution or fraud investigation on the grounds of national security violates a fundamental UK constitutional principle of the rule of law, and could be challenged under the Human Rights Act.
by Robert Wardle, former Director, Serious Fraud Office
Robert Wardle
This third witness statement from Robert Wardle, the former Director of the Serious Fraud Office, was submitted by the Serious Fraud Office in its appeal in the House of Lords.
by Helen Garlick, Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Office
Helen Garlick
This second witness statement from the the Serious Fraud Office's Assistant Director was submitted by the Serious Fraud Office for its House of Lords appeal.
by Dr John Jenkins, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Dr John Jenkins, FCO
A witness statement from Dr John Jenkins of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, presented by the Serious Fraud Office during its appeal in the House of Lords.
in House of Lords Appeal
The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade
This submission from The Corner House and CAAT lawyers to the House of Lords in response to an appeal by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office focuses on two principles of law: the Rule of Law; and compliance with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.
in response to CAAT/The Corner House request for judicial review
Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan
On 10 April 2008, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the decision of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to drop an investigation into alleged bribes by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia was unlawful. This is their 42-page judgment.
of judgment on Corner House and CAAT v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office and BAE Systems PLC
Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan
On 10 April 2008, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the decision of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to drop an investigation into alleged bribes by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia was unlawful. As the judgment is long -- on the judges' own admission -- they prepared a summary of the first part of their ruling.
Proceedings of second day of judicial review
court proceedings
On 14-15th February 2008, the High Court heard a judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office's decision in December 2006 to terminate its investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent arms deals with Saudi Arabia. This document is a transcript of the court proceedings of the second day, 15 February 2008, on which lawyers for the Serious Fraud Office continued their defence.
various
Documents released in the High Court on 14 February 2008 reveal that BAE Systems wrote to the Attorney General on a "strictly private and confidential" basis urging him to halt the Serious Fraud Office investigation into allegations that BAE had bribed Saudi Arabian officials to secure the Al Yamamah arms deal. The company argued that the investigation should be dropped on commercial and diplomatic grounds.
Proceedings of first day of judicial review
court proceedings
On 14-15th February 2008, the High Court heard a judicial review of the Serious Fraud Office's decision in December 2006 to terminate its investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent arms deals with Saudi Arabia. This document is a transcript of the court proceedings of the first day, 14 February 2008, on which lawyers representing The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade presented their arguments, and lawyers for the Serious Fraud Office began their defence.
For Judicial Review hearing 14-15 February 2008
lawyers on behalf of The Corner House and CAAT
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.
Robert Wardle, Director of Serious Fraud Office
A second witness statement from the Director of the Serious Fraud (SFO), Robert Wardle, was released in the High Court on Thursday 14 February 2008 during the judicial review hearing brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House into his decision to terminate the SFO's BAE-Saudi investigation.
A witness statement from the Assistant Director of the Serious Fraud (SFO), Helen Garlick, was released in the High Court on Thursday 14 February 2008 (although dated 31 January) during the judicial review hearing brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House into the SFO Director's decision to terminate the SFO's BAE-Saudi investigation.
Lord Justice Moses
On 17 January 2008, Lord Justice Moses finalised the grounds on which The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade could bring its judicial review, the disclosure of documents from the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, and the costs to be paid by both parties.
various
Documents released in the High Court on Friday 21 December 2007 indicate that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into BAE's Saudi arms deals was dropped only after the then Prime Minister Tony Blair sent a personal minute to the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.
Robert Wardle, Director of Serious Fraud Office
A witness statement from the Director of the Serious Fraud (SFO), Robert Wardle, indicates that he repeatedly rejected requests to terminate the Serious Fraud investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
Mr Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin
On 9 November 2007, Lord Justice Moses sitting with Mr Justice Irwin granted The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade permission to bring a full judicial review hearing against the decision by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to terminate the SFO investigation into alleged bribery by BAE Systems in its Saudi Arabian arms deals. Their judgment outlines their reasons for giving permission, and summarises issues relating to the costs of the judicial review.
For Permission Hearing for Judicial Review
lawyers on behalf of The Corner House and CAAT
On 9 November 2007 at a High Court hearing, lawyers for The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade presented this outline (or 'skeleton') of their arguments as to why a judicial review should be held of the Serious Fraud Office's decision in December 2006 to cut short its investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent Al Yamamah arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
by Mr Justice Collins
Honorable Mr Justice Collins
On 29 May 2007, a High Court judge refused to grant permission to The Corner House and CAAT for a full judicial review hearing of the December 2006 decision by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to stop an investigation into alleged bribery and corruption in BAE's recent arms contracts with Saudi Arabia.
Serious Fraud Office Director
The Serious Fraud Office Director argues that permission to bring a judicial review of his decision to stop the BAE-Saudi Arabia-corruption investigation should be refused.
against the Director of the Serious Fraud Office
The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade
On 18 April 2007, The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) filed papers at the High Court in a judicial review of the UK's Serious Fraud Office's decision in December 2006 to end its investigation into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in Saudi Arabia.
Nicholas Hildyard
This Corner House 'witness statement' outlines the nexus between corruption and bribery, and international trade, economic investment, terrorism and national security, and provides background on legislative and other steps to combat corruption. It forms part of the claim for a judicial review against the UK Government's decision in December 2006 to terminate an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into alleged corruption by BAE Systems in recent Al Yamamah arms contracts with Saudi Arabia.
Treasury Solicitor reply, 5 January 2007
UK Government Treasury Solitictor
The Treasury Solicitor confirmed that the Government intended to respond by 19 January 2007.
Corner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade response, 3 January 2007
The Corner House and CAAT
Corner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade agreed to the Treasury Solicitor's request for an extension of time to respond to the 18 December 2006 letter sent on behalf of The Corner House and CAAT, provided that he confirmed that the groups would receive a response by 19 January 2007.
Treasury Solicitor reply, 28 December 2006
UK Government Treasury Solicitor
The UK Government's Treasury Solicitor replied that the Government would endeavour to provide a substantive reponse by 19 January 2007 to the 18 December 2006 letter sent on behalf of The Corner House and CAAT.
CAAT and The Corner House
On 18 December 2006, The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) began a legal challenge to the decision by the UK's Serious Fraud Office to drop the investigation into bribery allegations involving BAE Systems Plc in Saudi Arabia.
A Legal Opinion
Lord Lester and Ben Jaffey
This Legal Opinion examines the legal powers of the UK's export credit agency, the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD), to blacklist companies involved in bribery and corruption. It argues that ECGD would be perfectly entitled to have a firm policy of refusing to provide financial support to companies that have previously engaged in bribery or corruption, provided that it also considered the exceptional circumstances of any particular case on its merits.
