Corner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Another: Admn 10 Apr 2008

The defendant had had responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute a company suspected of serious offences of bribery and corruption in the conduct of contract negotiations. The investigation had been stopped, alledgedly at the instigation of the government of Saudi Arabia, with a threat of ceasing co-operation in security arrangements.
Held: The rule of law required that any investigation should be stopped only by the director of the Serious Fraud Office on his own and independent assessment of the matter. ‘The Director failed to appreciate that protection of the rule of law demanded that he should not yield to the threat. Nor was adequate consideration given to the damage to national security and to the rule of law by submission to the threat. No-one took any steps to explain that the attempt to halt the investigation by making threats could not, by law, succeed. The Saudi threat would have been an exercise in futility, had anyone acknowledged that principle. We are driven to the conclusion that the Director’s submission to the threat was unlawful.’
Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan
[2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), Times 10-Apr-2008
Bailii
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office Admn 17-Jan-2008
The court considered interlocutory matters in the forthcoming application for judicial review of the respondent’s decision not to proceed with an investigation of allegations of bribery under the 2001 Act. . .
See AlsoCorner House Research and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 4-Feb-2008
The applicant sought judicial review of the decision by the Director to halt the investigation of alleged payment of bribes by a British defence company to members of the Saudi Royal family, which would be an offence under the 2001 Act.
Held: . .
CitedButtes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) HL 1981
In a defamation action, issues arose as to two conflicting oil concessions which neighbouring states in the Arabian Gulf had granted over their territorial and offshore waters. The foreign relations of the United Kingdom and Iran were also involved . .
CitedSharma and others v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago PC 20-Jun-2007
(Trinidad and Tobago) The issue in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to remuneration as members of the House of Representatives on a delay in the House sitting after an election. . .
CitedRegina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
CitedRegina v The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex Parte Manning, Ex Parte Melbourne QBD 17-May-2000
The applicants sought judicial review of the decision of the Director not to prosecute anybody after the death of their brother in prison custody, and while under restraint by prison officers. The jury at a coroner’s inquest had returned a verdict . .
CitedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
CitedAl Rawi and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another CA 12-Oct-2006
The claimants sought that the defendant should issue a request to the US authorities for their release from detention at Guantanamo Bay.
Held: The courts would not be able to intervene by judicial review, and would be reluctant to intervene in . .
CitedBermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office QBD 21-Feb-2006
Prosecution to protect defendant not available
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
CitedRegina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
CitedJackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
CitedRegina (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs CA 6-Nov-2002
There is no authority in law to support the imposition of an enforceable duty on the state to protect the citizen, and although the court was able to intervene, in limited ways, in the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used its . .
CitedRegina v Coventry Airport Ex Parte Phoenix Aviation; Regina v Dover Harbour Board Ex Parte Gilder Admn 12-Apr-1995
A local authority operator of an airport suspended flights on aircraft transporting livestock; a harbour authority refused to allow cross-Channel services for the export of live animals; and a local authority challenged the decision of a statutory . .
CitedRegina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders HL 15-Nov-2002
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights.
CitedIn Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) CA 22-Sep-2000
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromCorner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.266584