## Facts

- The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) started an investigation into alleged corruption regarding the Al-Yamamah arms agreement between the UK and Saudi Arabia.
- The Saudi Arabian government intervened, urging the UK government to halt the SFO's investigation, claiming that continuing would harm national security and diplomatic relations and jeopardize anti-terrorism cooperation.
- Corner House Research, an anti-corruption organization, challenged the SFO Director’s decision to discontinue the probe via judicial review.
- The High Court initially upheld the Director's decision, stating that the Director lawfully weighed national security risks and exercised wide discretion.

## Issues

1. Whether prosecutorial independence permits the SFO Director to discontinue an investigation due to external threats, such as those purportedly impacting national security or diplomatic relations.
2. Whether it is proper for the Director’s decision to be influenced by serious threats from a foreign government rather than solely by legal and public interest considerations.
3. How courts should review and direct the balance between prosecutorial discretion, rule of law, and national security.

## Decision

- The House of Lords reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that prosecutorial independence is essential to public confidence and must not be compromised by improper external pressure.
- The Lords accepted national security could be a relevant consideration but ruled that the SFO Director's decision was improperly influenced by Saudi threats.
- The Director’s actions were deemed unlawful because the threats, while serious, did not form a valid legal justification for discontinuing the investigation.
- The judgment established that such decisions must be grounded in legal standards and the public interest, not in response to political or economic pressure.

## Legal Principles

- Prosecutorial independence is essential to public confidence in the legal system and should be protected from inappropriate political or diplomatic interference.
- While national security and international relations are legitimate factors, their influence on prosecutorial decisions is strictly limited and subordinate to rule of law principles.
- The Director of the SFO must base decisions on evidence and the public interest, not on threats or pressures from external entities, and is subject to judicial review to ensure lawfulness and fairness.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords decision in R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office established robust standards for prosecutorial independence, limiting the influence of external threats—even those concerning national security—on prosecutorial decisions, and mandating that such choices comply with the law and public interest.

R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2009] 1 AC 756 (HL)