R (Corner House Research) v Director of Serious Fraud Office [2008]

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was investigating allegations of bribery involving BAE Systems, a UK defence contractor, and the Saudi Arabian government concerning the Al-Yamamah arms deal. During the investigation, the Director sought to examine Swiss bank accounts for evidence of improper payments to Saudi officials. However, the Saudi authorities issued threats, indicating that if the investigation continued, they would withdraw their counter-terrorism cooperation with the UK, endangering British lives. Following discussions with the Saudi ambassador, the Director decided to halt the investigation. Corner House Research, an NGO dedicated to anti-corruption efforts, challenged this decision through judicial review, asserting it violated the rule of law.

Issue: Was the SFO's decision to terminate the investigation lawful in light of external threats from the Saudi government?

Held: The House of Lords allowed the appeal, concluding that the Director’s decision to halt the investigation was lawful.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Bingham of Cornhill highlighted the importance of discretion in public office: The Director of the SFO, while independent, weighed the public interest in saving lives against the public interest in prosecuting the contractor. He stated: “What the Director had decided was that, in his judgment, the public interest in saving lives outweighed the public interest in pursuing the contracting company to conviction.” Lord Bingham clarified that the decision did not constitute a surrender of discretionary powers to external parties, asserting: “The issue was not whether his decision was right or wrong... but whether it was a decision which the Director was lawfully entitled to make.” Ultimately, he concluded: “In the opinion of the House, the Director’s decision was one he was lawfully entitled to make.”

💡 Leveluplaw: underscores the tension between the rule of law and the pragmatic considerations that public officials must navigate, especially in cases involving international relations and national security. The House of Lords' decision affirms that public officials have the discretion to make complex judgments when balancing competing interests, such as the potential risk to lives against the need for accountability in corruption cases. This ruling illustrates the challenges faced by authorities when external pressures threaten to undermine legal processes and highlights the necessity for a nuanced understanding of the interplay between law, policy, and public safety.