Geval BAE in Lords
Het Nieuws van CAAT | De vijf hogere Rechters zijn technisch een commissie van Lords zodat vond de hoorzitting in een ruimte van Lords plaats' Comité, die door reusachtige van de begrafenis van Koning Harold wordt overheerst te schilderen. Slechts waren de bovenkanten van de hoofden van de Rechters (zonder pruiken) zichtbaar van de meeste openbare zetels aangezien de banken van gevaldocumenten een muur over de ruimte vormden. Tussen de Rechters en de rest ons bewigged gezeten elf advocaten - CAAT en het Huis van de Hoek hadden vier (David Pannick QC, Philippe Sands QC, Dinah nam QC en Ben Jaffey) toe en Overheid vijf, terwijl `partij' BAE interesseerde, en `de bemiddelaar' Rechtvaardigheid, rechten van de mens en de organisatie van de wetshervorming, had per stuk één. Al deze advocaten werden gesteund door teams van rechtskundig adviseurs. Alhoewel de autoriteiten van Lords' een extra bank hadden toegevoegd, verliet dit retinue weinig ruimte in de ruimte.
Wij binnen volgestopt allen - de mensen van het Huis van CAAT en van de Hoek; Rob Evans van de Beschermer `s, die dit veel de BAE corruptiebeweringen had doen blootstellen, was daar samen met journalisten van andere documenten, BBC - en de specialisten wettelijke tijdschriften; de vertegenwoordigers van de Organisatie voor Economische betroffen Samenwerking en Ontwikkeling, dat zijn Overeenkomst van de anti-Omkoperij van 1997 zal zonder betekenis worden gemaakt als de Overheid corruptieonderzoeken mag tegenhouden zoals in dit geval, namen overvloedige nota's; Peter Gardiner, het vroegere reisbureau BAE dat bewijsmateriaal aan SFO gaf keek; en vele anderen waren aanwezig.
De argumenten
De van de Hoofd overheid advocaat, QC van Jonathan Sumption, ging eerst. Hij debatteerde dat de Directeur van SFO, aangezien een onafhankelijke eiser, een brede discretie had in verband met welke gevallen die hij of heeft onderzocht vervolgd, hij enkel `redelijk' moest handelen in het nemen van zijn besluiten. Hij veroorzaakte ook een getuigenverklaring van het Buitenlandse Bureau in een poging om aan te tonen dat, in tegenstelling tot wat Lord Justice Moses in het Hoge Hof had gezegd, de aandacht van Saoediger - de Arabische ambtenaren waren getrokken aan de scheiding van bevoegdheden tussen de Overheid en de wettelijke autoriteiten in het UK.
David Pannick daagde dit uit. He said the rule of law had to prevail and that this demanded that the SFO did not give into threats by Saudi Arabia to withdraw cooperation on anti-terrorism until all other options had been exhausted and, even then, only if it was strictly necessary. The Government, he said, did not meet this test, as all bar one of the approaches to Saudi Arabia listed in the Foreign Office statement had been made before the threats were issued and all were fairly casual mentions in the course of other meetings. Additionally, the UK did not seem to have reminded Saudi Arabia of its anti-terrorism commitments.
With regards to the OECD Convention, Dinah Rose argued that this was a relevant consideration because the SFO Director said his decision was made in accordance with it – the question was whether ‘national security’ was an implied exemption or not and she said not – whilst the Government said it was up to the OECD to decide on this issue.
No decision as yet
There was very little intervention by the Judges as the barristers made their submissions. This, we were told, is unusual. Each of five Judges now considers the submissions, looks up the precedents and writes his or her own speech – the verdict is the majority view. The result will be announced, most likely in October, when the Judges’ committee reports to the full House of Lords. Justice?
Campaign update
The House of Lords has overturned the High Court’s ruling that the Government broke the law by stopping the corruption investigation into BAE Systems’ Saudi arms deals. The case had been brought by CAAT and The Corner House with widespread support.
The Serious Fraud Office’s appeal was heard by the House of Lords on the 7th and 8th of July and judgment was given on 30th July.
One of the judges, Baroness Hale, said that she would have liked to have been able to say that it was wrong to stop the investigation as it was “extremely distasteful that an independent public official should feel himself obliged to give way to threats of any sort.” However, she had to agree with her colleagues that the decision taken by the SFO Director was lawful.
The judgment means that those with powerful friends prepared to make threats can effectively evade justice, particularly if the threats are couched in terms of national security. The ruling also confirms that the UK government has driven a coach and horses through a key international anti-bribery convention to protect its friends in BAE.
CAAT and The Corner House are not dejected by the result as it has brought the whole issue into the public realm and clarified the law.
Have Your Say: BAE case in the Lords
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report here.
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 14th, 2008 at 10:34 pm and is filed under Contributions & Guests . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Translations
Loading ...Related News
- Hacker Appeals To House Of Lords
- Ministers under pressure to reopen BAE investigation
- US Justice Department to probe BAE Saudi deals
- BAE unaware of ‘planned US probe’
- McKinnon loses fight against extradition
Email This Page To A Friend
Latest Headlines
- Channel 4 journalist grills Olympics organisers over human rights
- India to examine protest deaths
- Rwanda: Obscuring the Truth About the Genocide
- Another inconvenient truth: Fiscal Armageddon, coming to a cinema near you
- British libel laws violate human rights, says UN
- What’s on Tap and What You Need to Know About Drinking Water
- BAE case in the Lords
- Guantanamo general calls 2nd general ‘bullying’
- Antiwar activists seek expanded police probe
- Is Perpetual War Our Future? Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Bush Era
More Breaking News
Archive
