Lords rule SFO was lawful in halting BAE arms corruption inquiry (Bandar bribery case)

[emad]

Source: guardian

The House of Lords today ruled the Serious Fraud Office acted lawfully in stopping an inquiry into bribery allegations during an arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE Systems.

The five law lords unanimously overturned a high court decision in April that Tony Blair's government and the SFO caved in too readily to threats by Saudi Arabia over intelligence sharing and trade.

In today's ruling, the senior law lord, Lord Bingham, said the SFO's former director, Robert Wardle, was confronted by an "ugly and obviously unwelcome threat".

He said Wardle's decision to shelve the inquiry involved "no affront to the rule of law". Faced with threats of withdrawing anti-terrorism cooperation which could have put British lives at risk, "it may indeed be doubted whether a responsible decision-maker could… have decided otherwise," Bingham said.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/bae.armstrade

---

As has been widely reported ex-Saudi ambassador to the USA Prince Bandar - a lifelong chum of Bush Sr & Jr - received over £1.2billion of backhanders from the UK taxpayer, then exerted extreme pressure on the UK government to exonerate him of the kind of chaqrges that would have landed him in jail with a 20 year custodial sentence.


Today Lawlords Bingham, Hale and three others have expressed horror and disgust at Saudis' corrupt practices, despite their ruling.

Bingham said: SFO director Robert Wardle "was confronted by an ugly and obviously unwelcome threat".

Hale said: distasteful that an independent public official should feel himself obliged to give way to threats of any sort.

[comtec]

1. Well, in some ways it 's nice to know ours isn't the only corrupt gov with ties to Al Queida

sick, just fucking sick!

[emad]

2. a "successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdo

Judges Alan Moses and Jeremy Sullivan also that the SFO and the government had made an "abject surrender" to "blatant threats".

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/07/2008730102822920527.html

[Peace Patriot]

3. Who's your Daddy, Infidels! nt

[karynnj]

4. Murdock's Times of London blamed Kerry for the US

investigation into it - and implied it was just to benefit a MA company. They really did NOT want this investigation.

Here's a link to a DU post of the AP article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=135065

[OKthatsIT]

5. The Queen's men have the same script

doesn't surprise me in the least.

[bemildred]

6. They still have Lords?

Like that contemptible weasel Conrad Black?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. The Law Lords are the equivalent of the US Supreme Court

All are career lawyers and judges, who are appointed to be the highest court of appeal for the UK (and, I believe, a few small commonwealth countries that don't feel they're big enough to get a good selection of jurists for their final court of appeal). The process of appointment, however, is non-political. Since the House of Lords was historically the highest court, they're made Lords so they can handle the cases referred to the House of Lords.

However, the government has decided it'll be clearer if they are separated completely from the House of Lords, and they will become the Supreme Court in 2009.

For other Lords, yes, we still have them as the 'upper chamber' of Parliament - most are appointed (such as the odious Black - still a Lord (thanks, Blair), but they're saying they may change the law while he's inside to strip him of the honour), though there are still a few hereditary ones, who are now elected by the rest of the hereditary lords, and some Church of England bishops (yes, the UK is still a partial theocracy). It's not as powerful as the House of Commons - it can only block legislation for a limited time - and there are ideas to reform it into a mainly or entirely elected chamber (except for those bishops - for some reason, both Labour and Tories make it clear right from the start that they'll allow the bishops to keep their unelected seats), but these tend to get voted on, and then pushed to one side. For decades.