A Post sent to me today regarding the scandal the Brits are weathering concerning the deep sixing of an investigation into alleged Saudi Corruption, (the Serious Fraud Office is accused of unlawfully stopping the BAE-Saudi Corruption Investigation in December of 2006),  from someone who read it on http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/Jrmedia.pdf


It sounds ominously familiar compared to what’s been happening stateside, having certain government officials and special interests meddling in matters of law enforcement and justice. .  GFS






Selected Quotes from UK newspapers

on High Court ruling of 10 April 2008 that the Serious Fraud Office acted

unlawfully in stopping the BAE-Saudi corruption investigation in December


“What started as a David versus Goliath challenge, brought by a group of activists

dismissed as “treehuggers”, on Thursday [10 April 2008] culminated in a damning

condemnation of the [UK] government that is likely to reverberate for years to come.”

Financial Times

“Even the most optimistic of campaigners from Corner House Research and the

Campaign Against Arms Trade could not have expected to hear one of Britain’s most

senior judges castigate officials – including a former prime minister – for placing the

entire criminal justice system under threat.”

Financial Times

“There are moments when a statement of the obvious cuts through the fog of selfinterest

and evasion that clings to much of politics, and clears the way for a genuine

fresh start. The High Court’s stunning condemnation of the decision to abandon an

investigation into alleged bribery by BAE Systems is such a moment. ‘No one,’ Lord

Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan declared, ‘whether in this country or outside, is

entitled to interfere with the course of our justice.’ It should never have fallen to their

lordships to point this out.”

The Times

“The High Court . . . said there was no proof at all that British national security would

have been put at risk by anything the Saudis threatened to do. The purpose of the

threat was simply designed ‘to prevent the SFO from pursuing the course of

investigation he had chosen to adopt’. In that, the judgment went on tersely, ‘it

achieved its purpose’. “

The Independent

” . . . as the judges commented, there is ‘the suspicion’ that the security issue was ‘a

useful pretext for ditching an SFO inquiry that was harming commercial interests.”

The Guardian

“. . . the government leapt on ‘national security’ as a pretext to kill off an inquiry that

threatened bothersome diplomatic, political and economic consequences. “

The Observer

” . . . the government has drafted legislation [draft Constitutional Renewal Bill] to

enshrine in law the Attorney General’s right to stop criminal proceedings on grounds

of ‘national security’, while surrendering the right to meddle in all other cases. In other

words, the government will relinquish a power it never used and strengthen one it has

clearly demonstrated it can abuse.”

The Observer

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer – Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com