The mathematics of the Saudi decision

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, says that in the Saudi case we needed to balance the rule of law and the public interest. This is a very dangerous statement, for the rule of law and the public interest are not different things. They are two parts of the same thing.

This is all about maths.

The purpose of the rule of law is to ensure that, in a vast range of different circumstances and over a long period of time, the interest of the public is served on average.

The result of following the rule of law may be that in an individual incident some harm may be done to some people (those hoping for aerospace jobs might be an example) and may, just possibly, not be balanced with the good that results to others (those wishing to rid the world of bribery for instance). But over time, on the whole, this does not happen.

The result of the Government balancing the rule of law and public interest in each individual case may be better in an individual case but is, without question, worse in the end.

The rule of law may not be superior in each individual case, but it is better for all cases when they are considered together. And it only works that way because it is applied to all cases considered together. The only way the rule of law can succeed is if it is applied blindly.

It is not therefore necessary to consider the rights and wrongs of the particular Saudi case in order to judge whether the decision was the correct one. The rule of law must prevail if we are not to live with the consequences of arbitrary justice.

Comments

[Gabor Kovacs]

I'm going to invite others to develop and debate this. For quite some time I've been sceptical about the ideal of spreading democracy. It boils down to, what is democracy when the example of the USA or UK seems to be of a government elected on the votes of a minority of the electorate (with or without added shenanigans) which then claims a mandate to do all kinds of manifestly unpopular things? (I suppose we have the occasional right every few years to sack the government)

To my mind, the important principle that we should be trying to spread is that of rule of law. Rule of law applying, of course, to something other than the whim of the executive, and requiring strong and independent investigation/ enforcement processes and judiciary.

Discuss.

[Thomas Davies]

I agree with the above. Moreover, while the AG may hide behind terms such as "National interest" in reality all that has happened is that our Government has endorsed corruption and in doing so become corrupt itself. The National Interest referred to is a financial interest, I wonder how the AG calculates which laws are to be breeched.

[Russell]

The rule of law having been dismissed, and the public interest having been equated with the Government's interests (for which Blair takes "full reponsibility"), the Attorney General can now step in to halt the cash for honours enquiry. Not in the public interest, you see. While we're at it, why not arrest DC Yates for conduct prejudicial to national security?

[Thomas Davies]

I should clarify that when I agreed with the above I was referring to the article. Though I accept the argument from Gabor Kovacs re the rule of law, but disagree with the idea that this can be seperated out from the idea of democracy. The rule of law refers not to the laws you have but to how they are applied, justice should be blind etc. So a government that rules without a democratic mandate can make any law it sees fit and the courts are bound to enforce it. Core to the rule of law is the idea that the Courts apply the law, not make law. Though they do sometimes for e.g. marital rape, which was technically not rape until the Courts said it was in 1992 (shameful to think that our elected leaders didn't see fit to legislate on this). I personally think that it's time that we had a written constitution in the UK, the nearest thing to a written constitution we have is the Human Rights Act which acts to limit the executive by saying that they can make any law, so long they don't breach the rules laid down in the HRA (with exceptions such as public health, safety etc).

[Serf]

The idea that bribery overseas, should be against the law is a really bad one.

First of all, it extends the power of the British State beyond its proper limits.
Secondly, if we wish (as a nation) to sell arms, I'm sorry but its a completely corrupt business, and bribes will have to be paid.

That said, if the current government are stupid enough to pass these laws, then they should abide by them.

[Peter Whateley]

This is the ultimate get-out clause.

[Julian Morrison]

This is one of the cases where the principle is also absolutely pragmatic. Like the old joke that ends "we've already established what you are, miss, now we're just haggling price" - once a price on justice has been set, it will be open to bargaining. And someone is always willing to cut the price. Can you slide a sliver of moral difference between an attorney general who drops cases to keep a contract, and a judge whose children are put through university by the mob? This is truly a dark day for what was, ten years ago, still a nation of laws. May Labour be damned!

[Stephen Bull]

To escape from the SFO investigation the govenment has had to resort to evident hypocrisy and will surely suffer the consequences.
This should have been avoided by either not starting the investigation since nobody could think that a prosecution involving members of the Saudi royal family could ever be authorised, or by not signing up to a treaty outlawing bribery when we knew that vital economic interests depended on the lubrication of arms deals.
The only policy which would square the circle would involve an agreement with our arms trade competitors to follow the same rules. Apparently the British Government were convinced that either our closest ally or a fellow member of the EU associated with us in promoting good governance and opposing corruption would jump in to fill the gap.

[dwayne dowser]

Hey Frankenstein-if Blair asks an Attorney General to jump, how high will he go?

GCSE Maths 2006

[Chris Woolley]

If this activity had happened at a local level in the UK, it would be referred to as 'planning gain'. So, put it in the drawer of history, along with all the other changes accelerating this country into the mire upon which we used to frown. There is now nobody left to speak out, and 'the rule of law' is being traduced daily. Shame, I quite liked what we were.

[Iain Cameron]

Just how stupid does the government think we are? They know BAe have been contributing to slush funds, but it would be inconvenient to upset the Saudi Royal Family. Just as it would have been inconvenient to point out that 90% of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
Far better to ignore the laws of logic and invade Iraq, which had no connection with 9/11, and ignore the rule of law on corruption.
I am ashamed to be a British lawyer. How can we hope to hold our head up anywhere in the world when we have no governmental morals or principles left?

[Slim 75]

What is the point of an AG who finds "legal" that which he is told to find legal (e.g. the invasion of a sovereing state), or agrees to sweep whatever he is told to under the carpet?

[Adam Neilson]

Totally corrupt. We should have just told the Saudis to sod off and stop whinging. The 'national security' justification is a joke.

[Geoff Fielding]

The "public interest" in this case appears to be the idea that the Saudi Government would not co-operate re global terrorism if the investigation went ahead. This is unproven to say the least.

An alternative “public interest” is that uninhibited sleaze within global corporations has prevented the tackling of climate change, world poverty, and world disease, and promoted war. Sleaze therefore is extremely dangerous and is putting the future of the world at genuine risk.

Ethical dealings in contrast would promote global justice, reducing the potency of all those issues that presently empower terrorist groups. This is likely to prove far more successful in preventing terrorism than stopping sleaze investigations. The prosecution of corporate fraud is by this account very much in the public interest.

The damage done by the BAE decision is enormous. In putting the interests of BAE and the Saudi Princes ahead of genuine public interest the very legitimacy of the Government to govern is undermined.

[neal]

What staggers me about the comments posted on your site,with few exceptions, is their niavity.As a nation,much as we would like to think differently ,we have never really held the moral high ground, more we have been a pragmatic voice in a world where pragmatists keep their society well cared for and fed and idealists become idealogical heroes with an impoverished population , Castro or the former Soviet Union as a couple of examples.Fortunately democracey gives us a conscience but lets not allow our conscience to run away with us !

[TB]

More blair snide hypocricy. Tough racist New Labour rules against hoodies, single-mothers, Muslims and so called Al-Queda "terrorists" and shaming absent parents on websites,
Yet meddling in Police matters is yet another example of Fuhrer Blairs arrogant schizo character.
The truth is Blair felt, sweaty, and humiliated under the gritty questioning of the Police SFO.

True to form of a despot,..Blair then halts the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into bribery and corruption in BAE Systems' arms deals with the Saudi government.

[longsufferingcitizen]

Another unilateral Prime Ministerial intervention. What interests closer to home were really under threat here? TB's retirement fund opens soon - perhaps GWB, when not organising 'lecture tours', will oil the wheels with the Saudis through his family connections.

We can all recall a previous Prime Minister's son becoming seriously enriched through a Saudi Arabian contract signed by mother.

[Michael Hawksworth]

So Saudi " co-operation " in the War on Terror depends on us turning a blind eye to corruption at the highest level. Not content with playing lap-dog to an incompetent fool, our Prime Minister has now allowed himself to be bullied by a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. Money talks? If you ever doubted it.....

[MIke Bibby]

Of course it was right to cancel the investigation - the grevious error was to start it in the first place!

Why were the SFO allowed to run amok, digging into actions that were perfectly legal at the time (and for another ten years)?

This government has developed a nasty un-British habit of retrospective legislation, illegal retrospective application of laws without foundation is even worse!

[Keith Guest]

The Crown Prosecution service ALWAYS make decisions about prosecution 'balancing.. the rule of law and public interest' and that relates to all law and prosecution.(minor or otherwise).. and what would you balance against the fight against terror, plus thousands of British jobs versus political correctness. Tony Blair you are doing a good job for Britain.

[caroline]

Absolutely shame-faced corruption. How dare Tony Blair tell the UK's Attorney-General what to do. I guess that's why Blair elevated his friend to the peerage and appointed him Attorney General - so that he would carry out orders. It stinks!

[Stephen Bull]

Here is another little nugget of hypocrisy. Apparently it is OK to bribe Saudi officials but it is very very damaging to bribe Africans.
" on the initiative of the UK, the G8's Gleneagles Communiqué of July 2005
committed the G8 to “Reduce bribery by the private sector by rigorously enforcing laws against the
bribery of foreign public officials, including prosecuting those engaged in bribery; strengthening antibribery
requirements for those applying for export credits and credit guarantees, and continuing our support for peer review, in line with the OECD Convention; encouraging companies to adopt anti-bribery
compliance programmes and report solicitations of bribery; and by committing to co-operate with African
governments to ensure the prosecution of those engaged in bribery and bribe solicitation”. "
Rigorously enforcing laws!!!

[Russell]

The Nation has just been bullied! Europe has been divided and bullied! National Security was held to ransom.

What kind of European Union is this - where one State is played against another. Such a serious matter of National Security for the UK must be an an important issue for Europe. How could Europe be divided by the Saudi's and stand silent when one State played against another. It defies the most fundamental kind of common sense.

What happened was utter nonsense. Mr Blair, the citizens of this Nation are not all thick as two planks.

[Richard Bush]

What a black day for the country when the rule of law can be traduced to suit the whim of the government under the flimsy pretext of "public interest". No one can feel safe any more, since at any time our rights under law can now be overruled by the government, who are of course the self appointed arbiters of what constitutes "public interest"; once upon a time the public determined their own interest by democratic means and it was the responsibilty of the elected government to defend those interests, now we live in something fast approaching a third world dictatorship. David Blair, writing in the Telegraph today about Zimbabwe, asked "But what does Mugabe care about the law?" Perhaps a more important question today is, "But what does our Labour government care about the law?". Based on the available evidence I fear that the only answer is, "not much at all". May God have mercy on this nation.

[John Hirst]

In 2002, the Rt Hon Lord Woolf gave a lecture at the British Academy, during which he said: "Hitler may have obtained power as a result of a democratic process, but he forfeited the right to be regarded as a democratic leader of his people because he treated the rule of law with contempt".

Tony Blair obtained power through the democratic process. Surely, he has forfeited the right to be regarded as the democratic leader of the people because he has treated the rule of law with contempt?

[Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD]

Saudis ask for more armaments from USA. USA sells and Sales. Saudis wait with the oil at 35USDPB.
No one wants the oil. Chavez is dropping the price fast. Fidel is recovering from the ill health. The South American Cartel is coming up fast.
The losers=Saudis
Any other BIG problem?