Arms News...

My local MP Dawn Butler eventually replied to my several letters about the BAE arms scandal and the government's decision to cancel a Serious Fraud Office investigation into it on the grounds that it would potentially damage relations with the Saudis and intelligence on terrorists and that it would cost British jobs and trade.

She replied with a copy of a letter from the Defence Secretary which stated that the cancelation of this inquiry was perfectly legal and the government had nothing to answer for.

So imagine my surprise when the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) and Corner House took the government to court and the judge sided with them rather than the politicians and stated that the decision to cancel the inquiry was illegal.

The CAAT website reports it more fully:

'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."'

Bloody excellent work by CAAT and Corner House in my book. Restores your faith in British justice a bit.

Now Brown and his chums just have to realise that placing an extra tax burden on the very poorest by scrapping the 10p rate while letting non-doms pay a ridiculously small amount of tax (and propping up banks which have paid millions to shareholders in the past too) is also wrong. What are the chances, eh?