Legal World Comment
Occasionally the courts give a decision that gladdens the heart. The Divisional Court's ruling in April holding that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acted unlawfully in stopping its bribery investigation into BAE Systems' arms deal with Saudi Arabia was such a case. In ringing tones, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan declared that the SFO should not have caved in to Saudi threats: “We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be prevented by a threat…No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. The rule of law is nothing if it fails to constrain overweening power.”
This was rousing stuff, eloquently expressed and reported widely with approval. The SFO announced that it would delay a decision as to whether it would be re-opening its bribery investigation in defiance of the Saudis until after the House of Lords had heard the appeal. The House of Lords spoke on 31 July, the last day of the judicial term and, as ill-luck would have it, the day
