Resources: Legal paper

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.

Lawyers acting for The Corner House and Indian group Samata requested a Judicial Review of the decision by the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) effectively scrapping its absolute ban on providing financial support to projects overseas involving "harmful" child labour and forced labour. ECGD stated in response that it does not have to consider whether its support contributes to human rights abuse, because it "does not owe obligations to persons outside the jurisdiction of the UK".

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

On 15 August 2007, The Corner House and conservation organisation WWF-UK filed papers at the High Court in a judicial review of the UK's Export Credits Guarantee Department's decision in March 2004 to support the Sakhalin II oil-and-gas project off the far eastern coast of Russia.

The Corner House's 'witness statement' (as part of its joint claim with WWF-UK for a judicial review of the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department's decision in March 2004 to support the Sakhalin II oil-and-gas project off the far eastern coast of Russia) summarises The Corner House's monitoring over several years of the ECGD's environmental, human rights and development policies; its engagement with ECGD on the Sakhalin II project since November 2002; and its concerns about the March 2004 decision.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.