Saudi decision puts focus on law chief

By Jon Silverman
Legal affairs analyst

Lord Goldsmith said the decision was taken by the SFO

The attorney general has described his position regarding the abandoned investigation into alleged bribery by Saudi officials as "uncomfortable".

That must be the under-statement of the month.

Apart from suspicions that the decision has undermined the rule of law, it also sits uneasily with government commitments to tackle corruption both at home and abroad by reforming a complex set of laws.

In 2003, the UK signed up to the OECD anti-bribery convention and is playing a leading role in ensuring that the UN convention against corruption has teeth.

Ironically, one of the proposals under current consideration by the Home Office is to give the Serious Fraud Office powers to investigate earlier in cases of bribery involving UK firms overseas.

Inevitably, and not for the first time, there will be a harsh spotlight on the role of the attorney general himself.

'Full implications'

His stated reasons for the abandonment of the investigation are two-fold.

That it was not in the public interest to continue with it.

And that the prospects of securing convictions was a distant one.

These are the standard criteria by which any potential prosecution is judged.

But Lord Goldsmith's insistence that the decision was taken by the SFO, not himself, is being treated with some scepticism.

Lawyer Stephen Grosz said: "I don't see how the SFO could be expected to judge the full implications of the public interest in a case like this.

"It is also striking that the attorney general said it was necessary to balance the rule of law against the wider public interest.

"The rule of law should not be balanced against anything. It is paramount."

Costly inquiry

It is difficult to assess whether the attorney general and the SFO are at one on the decision to call a halt to the investigation.

However, the SFO's conviction rate has fallen in the last two years and it has struggled to win widespread public credibility.

To continue with a hugely costly investigation with a highly uncertain outcome in prospect might also have been subject to criticism.

The last time that an attorney general faced a firestorm over his role in a criminal case was in the arms-to-Iraq affair when Sir Nicholas (now Lord) Lyell gave advice to government ministers that allowed the controversial Matrix Churchill prosecution to go ahead.

That case led to a judicial inquiry.

It would not be surprising if there were similar calls this time too.