SFO | ukwatch.net

Saudis had ‘advance information’ on BAE case

Ellie Keen — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:11:15 +0000

THE Saudi governments seemed to have advance knowledge of the probability of Britain halting a bribery investigation before the official decision was taken, the former British ambassador to Riyadh revealed this week.

The disclosure appeared in evidence submitted to court by the Serious Fraud Office, as the House of Lords heard its appeal against a High Court ruling that it acted unlawfully in ending the inquiry against BAE Systems, who allegedly bribed Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia with £1 billion.

Lawyers for the SFO told the court that fraud office director Robert Wardle stopped the investigation in December 2006 because he believed that Saudi Arabia would cut off counter-terrorism co-operation with Britain, putting national security at risk.

Jonathan Sumption QC, for the SFO, said Mr Wardle only became aware of the full scale of the “threat” after receiving a minute in December 2006 from then Prime Minister Tony Blair, together with information from Government departments, warning of an “immediate risk of collapse in UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic co-operation”. Six days later he announced the investigation had been stopped.

But according to evidence presented by the Foreign Office, then British ambassador to Saudi Arabia Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles wrote three months earlier that he had discussed the SFO case with an unnamed senior Saudi government representative, who was “more optimistic about the SFO enquiry than seemed justified on the facts available to me”, and “always gave the impression that he had his own information”. The representative suggested the inquiry could be stopped on public interest grounds.

Lawyers for Campaign Against Arms Trade and Corner House Research, who are opposing the appeal, attacked the SFO and the Government for claiming that they had not broken international law in dropping the inquiry. Government documents disclosed last year revealed that the Saudi threats were considered so grave that the inquiry would have been stopped even if that breached Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s anti-bribery convention.

Article 5 of the convention bars states from allowing economic interests or foreign relations to influence bribery investigations.

Dinah Rose QC, for the campaigners, said it was illogical for the Government to “maintain the position ‘We acted in accordance with Article 5’ while saying, ‘You can’t consider that [in court] because we would’ve acted the same way if it was a breach’.”

The Attorney-General, who advised the SFO and Mr Blair, had misinterpreted the convention, Ms Rose said, adding: “If the decision maker has misunderstood the legal effect of the instrument he’s purporting to take into account, then his decision is flawed.” The SFO’s lawyers deny all wrongdoing and insist that Mr Wardle’s decision was rational and informed. The judgment is expected this autumn.

Cast off the Cloak

Ellie Keen — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:05:56 +0000

When Tony Blair intervened to get the Serious Fraud Office investigation into BAE’s alleged corruption in Saudi Arabia stopped on grounds of national security, few people believed a legal challenge could succeed. When it comes to protecting the lives and security of the nation, the courts allow the executive “an especially wide margin of discretion”, noted the judges in this case. Yesterday’s judgment that the SFO director acted unlawfully in dropping the inquiry is therefore a major blow to the government – and its ability to sweep controversial issues under the carpet.

The ruling has seriously constrained the government’s ability to invoke national security without scrutiny. The courts have increasingly been standing up to the government in relation to terrorism cases and slowly staking out the limits to its powers. But a challenge to a decision to quash a prosecution on national security grounds through a judicial review is unprecedented.

The high court has made clear that national security arguments cannot be used to override the rule of law. “It is obvious,” it says, “that the decision to halt the investigation suited the objectives of the executive. Stopping the investigation avoided uncomfortable consequences, both commercial and diplomatic.” The judges in effect accused the government of abusing national security arguments as a cloak for other more cynical motives.

Just two weeks before the judgment was delivered, the government mounted an attempt to preserve its powers. In a breathtakingly cynical move, it introduced draft legislation creating a power for the attorney general to halt prosecutions on national security. The bill concentrates power for making such decisions in the hands of the executive and makes a judicial review of a decision virtually impossible.

Under the proposed law, the attorney general will not have to provide information to parliament that impacts on national security or international relations. If anyone questions that decision, the attorney general will merely have to get a minister to provide a certificate stating it is to be considered “conclusive evidence of act”.

One of Gordon Brown’s first acts on taking over from Blair was to launch a major series of consultations on constitutional renewal. It was seen as an attempt to distance himself from what were regarded as the worst excesses of Blair’s rule. By letting these new powers for the attorney slip into the draft bill, Gordon Brown has shown himself to be no different to his predecessor.

Giving in to Saudi demands to drop the SFO inquiry looks grubby and self-serving, and has damaged Britain’s reputation irreparably. The decision can only have given succour to those corrupt regimes whom Britain repeatedly lectures on cleaning up their act.

Last week the OECD visited the UK, in a form of visit reserved for those countries deemed not to be complying with its anti-bribery convention. That is a damning reflection on the government. But yesterday’s judgment also offers an opportunity: it could decide it is serious about standing up for the integrity of the justice system and the independence of its prosecutors. It could decide to accept proper scrutiny of its national security decisions. It could decide that it means business on enforcing its corruption laws regardless of threats, regardless of who is accused, and regardless of who it upsets. Let us hope so.

Lord Avebury, a Liberal Democrat spokesman on foreign affairs, is vice-chair of the parliamentary human rights group; Susan Hawley is an analyst for The Corner House, an anti-corruption campaign group

Arms and the Man

Ellie Keen — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:12:54 +0000

The British government was desperate to sell a batch of Eurofighter/Typhoon warplanes to bolster its special relationship with Saudi Arabia – a relationship built on fantastically lucrative arms deals. To justify dropping the investigation into Britain’s biggest arms company and a prominent Saudi prince over allegations of bribery and corruption, Tony Blair cited “national security”, the last refuge of an arrogant, frustrated executive.

Yesterday, Lord Justice Moses, a judge who has more experience than most of Whitehall deception, saw through it. One may have some sympathy with Robert Wardle, the hapless director of the Serious Fraud Office, for surrendering to Blair and Lord Goldsmith, his attorney general, who passed on the extraordinary claims from Downing Street.

These claims were that the heads of MI5 and MI6 feared Saudi Arabia would deprive them of vital intelligence that could save the lives of scores of people on London’s streets if the investigation into BAE Systems and Prince Bandar, went ahead. Indeed, we were told, the Saudis had already privately threatened to do so.

Riyadh has consistently exaggerated the significance of the intelligence it has on terrorist groups. But let us just imagine that it did come up with genuine and credible information about a planned terrorist plot in Britain. Would it really withhold that information? Would any foreign regime, however brutal, do that?

In a devastating passage in their long judgment, Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan, say:

“No one suggested to those uttering the threat that it was futile, that the United Kingdom’s system of democracy forbad presure being exerted on an independent prosecutor whether by the domestic executive or by anyone else; no-one even hinted that the courts would strive to protect the rule of law…

“If, as we are asked to accept, the Saudis would not be interested in our internal domestic constitutional arrangements, it is plausible they would understand the enormity of the interference with the United Kingdom’s sovereignty, when a foreign power seeks to interfere with the iternal adminstration of the criminal law”.

Driving the point home, they continue: “It is not difficult to imagine what they would think if we attempted to interfere with their criminal justice system”. There is no fear of that. The British government did not interfere when its citizens were tortured when wrongly accused of bomb attacks. The furthest the UK government goes is to allude in annual Foreign Office human rights reports to Saudi practices of torture and beheadings.

With characterstic wit and irony, Moses concludes the judgment by referring to Blair’s claim when the then-PM announced that the Serious Fraud Office had dropped the investigation. The judges note that Blair had said “this was the clearest intervention in the public interest he had seen”. They add: “We agree”.

Blair set the pattern, and ministers have since demonstrated they are prepared to play fast and loose with torture, whether it is colluding with the US practice of rendition or deporting suspects to such places as Jordan and Libya. On Wednesday, the courts stopped the deportation of the Jordanian, Abu Qatada, and two Libyans, regarded as threats to Britain’s national security.

This case has all the exotic ingredients – arms deals, alleged corruption, and claims that our national security is at stake. Ministers are now hatching a plot to introduce a law whereby the courts will not be able to intervene whenever the attorney general hoists the flag of “national security”. I wonder what Moses and his peers will think of that.

BAE Investigation Ruled Unlawful

Ellie Keen — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:32:17 +0000

The High Court this morning ruled that the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acted unlawfully when he stopped a corruption investigation into BAE Systems’ arms deals with Saudi Arabia.

The judgment was handed down by Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan in response to a judicial review brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House.

In the light of this judgment, the Serious Fraud Office must reopen the BAE-Saudi corruption investigation immediately. Both groups are calling upon the SFO to work jointly with US and Swiss investigators in doing so.

The judges detailed how BAE lobbied the Government by suggesting that the company would lose a large Saudi arms sale if the investigation was not dropped.

When the SFO was about to obtain access to Swiss bank accounts, Saudi Arabia threatened not only to cancel the arms deal but also to withdraw diplomatic and intelligence co-operation. This threat was made by Prince Bandar, who was allegedly complicit in the corruption under investigation.

The judges described the SFO Director’s subsequent termination of the investigation on 14th December 2006 as a “successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom”.

They ruled that:

“No-one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. It is the failure of Government and the defendant [the Director of the Serious Fraud Office] to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court.”

In explaining their reasons for ruling in favour of The Corner House and CAAT, the judges found that:

i. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office had failed to exercise his independent judgment in halting the investigation.

ii. The Director had failed to convince the court that he had done all in his power to resist the threat in order to uphold the rule of law.

They stated:

“The Director failed to appreciate that protection of the rule of law demanded that he should not yield to the threat . . . We are driven to the conclusion that the Director’s submission to the threat was unlawful.”

The judges were scathing about the Government’s arguments for ending the investigation

“It is obvious . . . that the decision to halt the investigation suited the objectives of the executive. Stopping the investigation avoided uncomfortable consequences, both commercial and diplomatic.”

As to whether the SFO Director’s action had broken the OECD’s Anti-Bribery Convention, the judges concluded that the SFO Director should answer to the OECD’s Working Group on Bribery.

Susan Hawley of The Corner House, said:

“This is a great day for British justice. The judges have stood up for the right of independent prosecutors not to be subjected to political pressure. And they have made sure that the Government cannot use national security arguments just because a prosecution is not in their interests

Symon Hill, spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), said:

“We are delighted. This judgment brings Britain a step closer to the day when BAE is no longer calling the shots. It has been clear from the start that the dropping of the investigation was about neither national security nor jobs. It was due to the influence of BAE and Saudi princes over the UK Government. As we have pursued this case, we have been overwhelmed by the support we have received from people in all walks of life, who do not want BAE to be above the law that the rest of us have to follow.”

The judgment comes just weeks after Gordon Brown’s Government announced that it is planning to give the Attorney General the power to stop criminal investigations and prosecutions by citing “national security” without the decision being subjected to judicial consideration or meaningful Parliamentary oversight. In the light of today’s judgment, The Corner House and CAAT insist that this proposed legislation, contained in the Constitutional Renewal Bill, must be abandoned.

Notes

1. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) works for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade. The Corner House is an environmental and social justice NGO. They have been represented throughout the proceedings by Leigh Day & Co, along with counsel from Blackstone Chambers.

2. Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan heard the judicial review brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House on 14-15 February 2008. The full judgement and summary of the judgement are available as pdfs.

A time line of the judicial review and the arguments and evidence presented are also available.

3. The Corner House and CAAT challenged the SFO Director’s decision to terminate the BAE-Saudi investigation on six grounds, on which the judges ruled as follows:

i) It was unlawful and against the constitutional principle of the rule of law for the Director to give into the threat made by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia;

ii) The Director failed to take into account the threat posed to the UK’s national security, the integrity of its criminal justice system, and the rule of law by giving into the threat;

iii) The Director mis-interpreted Article 5 of the OECD Convention and took into account irrelevant considerations;

iv) The Director failed to take into account the fact that Saudi Arabia would be breaching its international obligations on terrorism if it carried out the threat;

v) The advice given by ministers was tainted by irrelevant considerations under Article 5 of the OECD Convention;

vi) The Shawcross exercise was improperly conducted as ministers expressed opinion as to what the Director’s decision should be.

4. The Government published the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill on Tuesday 25 March 2008.

Clause 12 empowers the Attorney General to direct a prosecutor to discontinue an investigation or prosecution if satisfied it is necessary to do so to safeguard ‘national security’, which is not defined.

Clause 13 makes such a direction binding on prosecuting authorities. If the direction’s necessity is questioned, a certificate signed by a Government Minister certifying that the direction was necessary would be considered as conclusive evidence of that fact.

Clause 14 obliges the Attorney General to report to Parliament on the giving or withdrawal of a direction, but allows the Attorney General to exclude information that could prejudice national security or international relations.

Clause 17 defines ‘prejudice to international relations’ widely as including:
- relations between the UK and another other state, or international organization or court;
- the interests of the UK abroad;
- the promotion or protection by the UK of its interests abroad.

‘The interests of the UK’ are not defined.

BAE Pressurised Government to Halt Investigation

Ellie Keen — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:43:16 +0000

Documents released in the High Court today reveal that Britain’s biggest arms company, 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 officials to secure the Al Yamamah arms deal. The company argued that the investigation should be dropped on commercial and diplomatic grounds.[1]

The documents were released as part of a judicial review being brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House, who argue that the decision to drop the investigation was illegal. The case is being heard in the High Court today and tomorrow (14-15 February) before Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan.

BAE’s “Memorandum for Attorney General” set out “the reasons why the Company considers it not to be in the public interest for the SFO investigation . . . to continue.” It argues that the continued investigation would “adversely and seriously affect relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia” and would jeopardise the multibillion-pound sale of Typhoon aircraft.

This Memorandum triggered a consultation within government departments on the “public interest” aspects of the investigation, even though it had been sent by BAE itself – the very subject of that criminal investigation.[2]

The Serious Fraud Office began its investigation into the Saudi arms deals in November 2004, but the BAE letters released today were only written one year later in response to an SFO order that BAE disclose its payments to agents and consultants involved in the Saudi arms deals.

BAE expressed concern in the released Memorandum that the Saudis would view disclosure of documents to the SFO as a breach of confidentiality and trust (although it admitted that similar information about “the names of consultants engaged by the Company and the amounts paid to them” had previously been provided to the Inland Revenue, apparently without any adverse commercial or diplomatic consequences”).

Nowhere did BAE mention the issue of ‘national security’.

Another document released today indicates that even the representations subsequently made by government departments to the SFO on the public interest aspects of the investigation were made at BAE’s instigation.

Robert Wardle notes of a telephone conversation with BAE’s Legal Director, Michael Lester, that BAE “would make further representations to the Ministry [of Defence] for them to make representations to us [the Serious Fraud Office]”.[3]

Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House said today: “Even though it was the subject of the criminal investigation, BAE brazenly tried to stop the Serious Fraud Office from doing its job. Nor was it alone. The letters released today reveal the hand-in-glove relationship between BAE and its friends in government. What’s more, it’s clear from these documents that ‘national security’ — the reason ultimately given for pulling the plug on this investigation — was trotted out as a concern only when all these other special pleadings of commercial and diplomatic consequences had failed.”

Symon Hill of CAAT said: “This is absurd. A criminal investigation was dropped at the request of the people accused of the crime. The whole BAE saga is becoming more and more like an episode of Yes, Minister. Britain’s democracy, economy and security will all be better off when BAE is no longer calling the shots.”

NOTES

1. Michael Lester, Group Legal Director, BAE Systems, letter to Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General, 7 November 2005, and “BAE Systems plc (‘the Company’), SFO Investigation, Memorandum for Attorney General”, RW4, pp.3-7.

2. The normal procedure is to assess the public interest aspects of a potential prosecution after a completed investigation has revealed whether there is enough evidence for a prosecution or not.

3. File note written by Robert Wardle, Director of the SFO, 22 December 2005, RW4, p.14.

4. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) works for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade. The Corner House is an environmental and social justice NGO.

5. Background to judicial review

14 December 2006: The Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) suspended the SFO’s investigation into bribery and corruption by BAE Systems since 2002 in relation to the Al-Yamamah military aircraft deals signed between the governments of the UK and Saudi Arabia in 1985 and 1988. The deals ran for 20 years and were to supply aircraft, defence system, weapons and related products and support services. The 2001 Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act made bribing a foreign official a criminal offence. The SFO began its investigation in November 2004.

Some time in 2005 and 2006, Saudi Arabia threatened to cancel a further deal involving BAE’s Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and to withdraw security, intelligence and diplomatic co-operation with the UK if the investigation continued. These threats appear to have been made when it was discovered that the SFO was about to obtain details of Swiss bank accounts linking BAE and Saudi officials. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, one of the alleged beneficiaries of the corrupt payments being investigated by the SFO, is reported to have been the source of these threats. (The Guardian, “BAE accused of secretly paying £1bn to Saudi prince”, 7 June 2007; The Times, “Bandar Lobbied No 10 to drop Saudi bribes inquiry”, 10 June 2007)

18 December 2006: The Corner House and CAAT wrote to the UK Government arguing that the SFO decision was unlawful and should be reversed.

9 November 2007: Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Irwin granted permission to the two groups to bring a full judicial review hearing against the SFO decision to discontinue its investigation.

21 December 2007: At a Directions Hearing, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office presented his evidence to the Courts outlining why he had decided to drop the investigation. This included:

a witness statement from the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Robert Wardle

letters and memos sent between the Prime Minister/Cabinet Office and the Attorney General from December 2005 to December 2006.

14 February 2008:
The Director of the Serious Fraud Office presented further evidence to the Courts outlining why he had decided to drop the investigation:

12 letters, memos, notes and emails sent from November 2005 to December 2006 from and/or to BAE Systems; Allen & Overy (BAE solicitors); Attorney General’s office; and the Serious Fraud Office. (Linked here.)

a second witness statement from the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Robert Wardle.

6. CAAT and The Corner House are bringing the judicial review on six overlapping grounds:

i) OECD Anti-bribery Convention

The decision to discontinue the BAE-Saudi corruption investigation was based on considerations of potential damage to the UK’s relations with Saudi Arabia, in particular, damage to UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation. This is unlawful because it contravenes Article 5 of the OECD’s Anti-bribery Convention, which prevents signatories from terminating an investigation because of “the potential effect [of an investigation] upon relations with another State”. (For more information, see note 8 below)

ii) Saudi Arabia’s international legal obligations to combat terrorism

The UK effectively colluded with Saudi Arabia in breaching Saudi Arabia’s international legal obligations to cooperate and share information on terrorist activities, and thereby colluded in committing an internationally wrongful act.

iii) Acting on tainted advice from government ministers

Government ministers (including the Prime Minister) took into account the risk of the UK not being able to sell Typhoon aircraft, and other commercial, economic and diplomatic matters when they gave advice to the SFO Director on the public interest aspects of the investigation. This was despite being told by the Attorney General that Article 5 of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention forbids such considerations from being taken into account. The ministerial advice was therefore “tainted”.

iv) Damaging national security by discontinuing the investigation

The SFO Director is under a legal obligation to take a balanced view of the public interest issues arising from an investigation. But neither the Director nor government ministers assessed or took into account the harm to the UK’s national security of discontinuing the investigation.

v) Government ministers expressed a view on what decision an independent prosecutor (the Director of the Serious Fraud Office) should take.

The SFO Director and Attorney General requested views from government Ministers on the public interest aspects of pursuing the investigation. The rules for these consultations between the judiciary and the executive forbid Ministers from giving a view on whether a prosecution should proceed or not. But the Prime Minister expressed a clear view that the public interest would best be served by intervening to halt the investigation. This is unlawful.

vi) Blackmail, threats and the rule of law

It is unlawful for an independent prosecutor to permit threats or blackmail to influence his/her decision to discontinue a criminal investigation or prosecution. To do so is to surrender the rule of law.

7. The Serious Fraud Office is a UK government department that investigates and prosecutes complex fraud. It aims to contribute to “the delivery of justice and the rule of law.” The Attorney General superintends the Director of the Serious Fraud Office; both are supposed to act independently of government.

The Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the Government and is responsible for all crown litigation. The Attorney General is appointed by the Prime Minister and is a member of parliament. Under the OECD Anti-bribery Convention, political appointees should not make decisions on corruption cases.

8. The OECD Anti-bribery Convention, which the UK signed in 1997, is a multilateral treaty aiming to ensure that all OECD countries present a combined and united front against bribery and corruption of foreign public officials.

Article 1 of the Convention requires parties to make it a criminal offence to bribe a foreign public official. The UK did so in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act.

Article 5 makes provisions to enforce Article 1. It rules out the termination of corruption investigations on grounds other than the merits of the case. Signatory governments specifically undertake not to be influenced “by the potential effect [of an investigation] upon relations with another State . . . .”

But the SFO Director’s decision to suspend the investigation was based on considerations of potential damage to relations with Saudi Arabia if the BAE-Saudi arms deals investigation continued.

Article 5 also prevents signatories from being “influenced by considerations of national economic interest” in deciding whether to terminate an investigation.”

Yet Tony Blair stressed his concern about “the critical difficulty presented to the negotiations over the Typhoon contract”, (a proposed but unsigned deal for the sale of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft from BAE to Saudi Arabia) in a “personal minute”, dated 8 December 2006, to then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

9. The “rule of law“ is a fundamental principle in Britain’s unwritten constitution. It holds that the best way of protecting people’s rights from the arbitrary exercise of power is to apply and uphold legal rules impartially. Doing so requires an independent judiciary (prosecutors, judges, magistrates, courts) that acts “without fear, favour or prejudice”, according to the Attorney General.

Any action that undermines the impartial application and upholding of the law – such as interference with the courts, judges, prosecutors, juries or witnesses; decisions that courts cannot review; placing individuals or entities above the law – undermines the rule of law.

Applying the rule of law means that a government’s authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws that are adopted and enforced according to established procedural steps (or due process).

The rule of law involves a clear separation of powers between the Executive (government), the Legislature (Parliament) and the Judiciary. The Executive is responsible for the day-to-day management of the state; the Legislature creates, amends and ratifies laws; and the Judiciary interprets the law on a case-by-case basis.

10. Spokespeople for CAAT and The Corner House are available for interview:

CAAT – Symon Hill

020 7281 0297or 07990 673 232

The Corner House – Nicholas Hildyard

0777 375 0534 or 01258 473795

Sacrifice to Mammon

Ellie Keen — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:32:51 +0000

The “strictly private and confidential” documents obtained by the Campaign Against Arms Trade and The Corner House illustrate that the supposed majesty of the law was sacrificed on the altar to Mammon when the Serious Fraud Office was made to terminate its investigation of arms deals to Saudi Arabia.

Legality fell victim to a pincer movement by arms dealer BAe Systems and corrupt theocratic dictatorship Saudi Arabia.

And their collaborative efforts were never likely to fail while Britain was lumbered with a prime minister who, despite his self-proclaimed religiosity, was ruled by an unrelenting worship of private profit.

Just as his much-touted attachment to Christianity did not interfere with his record of mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan, so his training as a lawyer did not impinge on his contempt for due process of law.

While BAe wrote to the attorney general and the Ministry of Defence suggesting that investigation of its bribery of Saudi officials over the £43 billion al-Yamamah arms deal would not be in the “public interest,” Tony Blair rejected such namby-pamby whining.

In his view, which then-attorney general Lord Goldsmith then parroted, the SFO probe threatened “national security.”

No justification was ever given for this bizarre statement, because it was plainly unjustifiable. The only thing threatened was political embarrassment.

BAe would have been embarrassed at the revelation that it bribed trading partners and the Saudi officials, members of the rancid House of Saud, would have been shown up as grasping, sticky-fingered crooks.

But, above all, the Blair government would have been exposed as covering up past venality in order to facilitate future crimes.

Six months ago, Saudi Arabia agreed to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets for about £4.4bn. Whose hands were greased for this deal or would it compromise our national security for these details to be known?

Britain’s symbiotic relationship with the Saudi autocracy ought to be unthinkable by any government that acts as though it has a divine mission to promote democracy, freedom and human rights – from the barrel of a gun – throughout the world.

In common with its US senior partner, it praises Saudi Arabia, not as a democracy – how could it? – but as a force for stability, moderation and reliability in the war against terror.

Tell that to the women of Saudi Arabia who are banned from driving cars, who cannot appear in court without a male representative and who cannot travel without a male relative’s permission.

Tell it also to Fawza Falih, who has been sentenced to death in the kingdom on the spurious charge of “witchcraft,” solely on the basis of her coerced confession.

What on Earth is our country doing selling weapons of mass destruction to this despotic monarchy, which sets its face like flint against any meaningful progress to democracy of any kind?

Far from Britain’s “constructive engagement” policy encouraging Riyadh to relax its dictatorship, our government’s Byzantine smothering of due legal process suggests a contrary flow of influence.

New Labour stands accused of subverting national democracy and the rule of law in its chosen quest of prioritising corporate profits over everything.