Campaigners seek court injunction against UK Serious Fraud Offices's BAE settlement
Judicial review papers lodged

by The Corner House and CAAT

first published 26 February 2010


Lawyers acting for Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House today lodged papers at the High Court asking for an injunction to delay the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) from seeking court approval for its controversial plea bargain settlement with BAE Systems pending the outcome of a Judicial Review. They lodged papers requesting the Judicial Review at the same time. (see Facts and Grounds)

The campaigners contend that the proposed settlement is unlawful because the SFO did not follow the correct prosecution guidance (including its own guidance) on plea bargains.

They argue that the agreement does not reflect the seriousness and extent of BAE's alleged corruption, and does not provide the court with adequate sentencing powers.

The groups also hold that the SFO unlawfully concluded that the factors weighing against prosecuting BAE on bribery and corruption charges outweighed those in favour of prosecution.

Under the SFO's proposed settlement, BAE would plead guilty in court to "accounting irregularities" in its 1999 sale of a radar system to Tanzania and would pay penalties of £30 million. The SFO would not bring prosecutions relating to alleged bribery and corruption in BAE's arms deals elsewhere, including in the Czech Republic, South Africa and Romania.

Kaye Stearman, CAAT's spokesperson, says:

"The plea bargain in no way reflects the very serious allegations of bribery and corruption against BAE, limited as it is to minor book keeping offences in one country."

Nicholas Hildyard for The Corner House says:

"We've had no option but to seek an injunction. The Serious Fraud Office should not seek legal approval of its proposed settlement with BAE before the courts have had an opportunity to assess whether the decision to make that settlement was lawful in the first place. We believe it was not lawful."

Lawyers acting for the two groups have also requested a judicial review of the SFO's decision to discontinue its prosecution of Count Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly.



The Serious Fraud Office has been investigating alleged bribery and corruption in BAE's arms deals since 2004 in several countries (including Chile, Czech Republic, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Tanzania). BAE is alleged to have paid bribes, often in the form of commissions to "advisers" to clinch the deals.

On 1 October 2009, the SFO announced that it intended to prosecute BAE Systems for offences relating to overseas corruption.

On 29 January 2010, the SFO charged Count Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly with conspiracy to corrupt in connection with BAE's deals with eastern and central European governments including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Austria. In the course of these preliminary hearings, the SFO told the courts that "From 2002 onwards, BAE adopted and deployed corrupt practices to obtain lucrative contracts for jet fighters in central Europe." It was a "sophisticated and meticulously planned operation involving very senior BAE executives."

Mensdorff-Pouilly was granted bail of £1 million on Thursday 4 February 2010.

On 5 February 2010, however, the SFO announced its plea bargain settlement with BAE.

This settlement was announced in conjunction with a much larger settlement made by the US Department of Justice with BAE. Under this settlement, BAE admitted making false statements in 2000-2002 in relation to BAE's arms deals with Saudi Arabia and passing covert payments through the United States in regard to its arms deals in Central European countries. It will be fined $400 million (£256 million). Because it has not pleaded guilty to corruption charges, BAE can continue to bid for US military contracts.

Later on 5 February 2010, the Serious Fraud Office announced that it was withdrawing proceedings against Count Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly on the grounds that it was no longer in the public interest to continue.

Both CAAT and The Corner House expressed their disappointment at the announcement.

On 12 February 2010, lawyers acting on behalf of Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House sent a "Letter Before Claim" to the Director of the Serious Fraud Office laying out their intention to request a judicial review of the SFO's decision to enter a plea agreement with BAE.

Back in December 2006 the SFO dropped its bribery and corruption investigations into BAE's arms sales to Saudi Arabia, following pressure from BAE and Saudi Arabia and a direct intervention from then Prime Minister Tony Blair. The decision was subject to severe criticism and prompted CAAT and The Corner House to launch a Judicial Review of the decision. In April 2008, the High Court ruled that the SFO Director had acted unlawfully by stopping the investigation; that judgment was subsequently overturned by the House of Lords in July 2008, which ruled that he had acted lawfully when faced with a threat to national security.


  1. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) works for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade.

    The Corner House aims to support democratic and community movements for environmental and social justice through analysis, research and advocacy.

    Solicitors Leigh Day & co are acting for both groups.

  2. Summary of investigations into BAE
  3. The Serious Fraud Office is a UK government department that investigates and prosecutes complex fraud.
  4. BAE Systems is the world's fourth largest arms producer. It makes fighter aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery systems, missiles and munitions. Its foremost markets are Saudi Arabia and the United States. It has consistently denied any wrong-doing.
  5. A judicial review is a court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. Now that CAAT and The Corner House have lodged papers at the High Court requesting a judicial review, the Serious Fraud Office Director will submit his legal arguments and a witness statement arguing why the decision to offer a plea bargain settlement with BAE was lawful. A judge will then consider the papers from both sides and decide whether to grant or refuse permission for a full judicial review hearing.