News Litigation Public sector and local authority UK Lords uphold SFO appeal against BAE bribe ruling By The Lawyer 30 July 2008 11:26 17 December 2015 16:00 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer John Bull 30 July 2008 at 11:55 How depressing The story follows a very clear case of corruption in which the government intervened to protect British business. Whether that was the right thing to do or not is a different question – I’d advocate that they shouldn’t have signed the anti-corruption treaty if they weren’t going to uphold it – but it’s depressing to see the courts defend what is very clearly an illegal act. Reply Link Bobby Smith 30 July 2008 at 12:14 SFO appeal against BAE bribe upheld This is actually a very sad day for democracy in this country, aswell as a bad day for the reputation of the Lords. Every voter should now be aware that the UK government is no longer in control of foreign policy and that the Lords are actually in favour of corruption for UK plc. This decision means that the UK government can never again lecture other countries on the rule of law and is yet another example of the rush to rule by fear! Reply Link Michael Knowles 30 July 2008 at 12:42 Common Sense What a good day for common sense. My children woke this morning from a lovely sleep about a nice pink world where ponies pranced and lemonade flowed freely from fountains. It appears there are many who live there permanently. Reply Link Graham Lawrence 30 July 2008 at 12:48 Common sense? Common sense my Aunt Sally. Rule of Law is a critical distinguisher between a first-world democracy and a banana republic – government interference into it is something that few British governments have tried often or at all, and that has almost always rebutted by the judiciary. Their mutual failing here is neither common sense nor traditional. Reply Link Michael Knowles 30 July 2008 at 17:27 common sense Quite agree with you,however we are in a global economy and to remain a ‘first-world democracy’ we must be able to play the game effectively or we are simply outdone by those aspiring to replace us at the top. The deal represented employment for many – this, I believe, outweighs any sensitivities we may hold as to the rights and wrongs of dealing with others who do not place our high moral code so highly.If you wrestle with a chimney sweep you will always come out looking dirty. Reply Link Andrew Haslam-Jones 30 July 2008 at 17:53 Morality Probably the House of Lords and the Attorney General were right. The letter of the law has not been broken. What has happened was possible within the current legal structure. How do we avoid it happening again? Perhaps the only way for an international treaty to be enforced is for it to be done by an international court. (We are a cynical profession but we should employ that cyncism in the quest for a better solution, rather than in the negation of hope.) Reply Link Anonymous 31 July 2008 at 10:02 BAE SFO Properly appointed prosecutors are lawfully and constitutionally entitled to make decisions on proceedings they are considering – including lawfully declining to prosecute – at any point. As a former (Scots and English) prosecutor I have observed that English lawyers in particular seem to have difficulty at times with (or a ‘manufactured disinclination’ to follow) this fundamental principle that is also a core part of the exercise of the ‘Separation of Powers’ – Legislative / Judicial / Executive. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.