The SFO discontinued its investigation into arms deals between BAE systems and the Saudi Arabian royal family in December 2006. In November 2007, CAAT and Corner House Research succeeded in winning the right for a judicial review.

For its part, the SFO claims, “it acted lawfully in deciding to drop the probe and is contesting the court challenge,” writes the Financial Times. Robert Wardle, the director of the SFO, told the court in a witness statement: “The idea of discontinuing the investigation went against my every instinct as a prosecutor. I wanted to see where the evidence led,” (Guardian). In a press statement on 14 December, 2006, Wardle declared that ending the inquiry was necessary “to safeguard national and international security,” (The Times).

The Financial Times writes that the campaign groups claim that, “Tony Blair, the former prime minister, and his government caved in to intense lobbying from BAE…after senior members of the Saudi royal family threatened to cancel a £10 bn (US $19bn) aircraft contract and to withdraw security cooperation if the investigation was not halted.” The groups’ lawyer, Dinah Rose QC, has argued that the real reason for dropping the investigation, “was not national security but the commercial situation”, writes the Guardian. If this is the case she said, then the decision would therefore be seen as a violation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, notes The Times. According to the Guardian, Lord Justice Moses, one of Britain’s most senior judges, commented: “It is no good just waving the flag of national security. If (its use) is so wide, it undermines the [OECD] treaty."

Lord Justice Moses also expressed surprise that, “the government did not seem to consider alternative solutions in the face of such threats” and accused the British government of “rolling over to Saudi threats” (Finanicial Times).

The judges’ ruling has still to be announced.