R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL...

Facts

• The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigated alleged corruption linked to the Al-Yamamah arms agreement between the UK and Saudi Arabia.
• The Director of the SFO decided to halt the investigation after discussions with the Saudi Arabian government, citing concerns over national security and potential economic harm.
• Corner House Research, an anti-corruption group, challenged this decision, asserting it was improperly influenced by external pressure and failed to properly weigh the public interest in prosecution.

Issues

1. Whether the SFO Director’s discretion to discontinue a prosecution may lawfully be influenced by external threats or diplomatic pressure.
2. Whether national security concerns can justify the discontinuation of a serious fraud investigation.
3. Whether the decision-making process respected the requirements of independence, fairness, and the proper consideration of public interest.
4. Whether the SFO Director failed to act lawfully by yielding to external pressure rather than prioritizing prosecution where evidence is sufficient.

Decision

• The House of Lords held the SFO Director acted lawfully in terminating the investigation.
• The Court found that national security threats and the broader public interest were valid considerations in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
• The Director was not found to have improperly relinquished independence by weighing these factors; practical geopolitical threats could be legitimate grounds for decision-making.
• The House of Lords reassured the continued importance of prosecutorial independence but recognized the necessity to consider serious and credible threats to public safety and diplomatic interests.

Legal Principles

• Prosecutorial discretion is subject to judicial review but allows authorities to weigh a broad range of public interests, including national security and diplomatic concerns.
• Independence, fairness, and the avoidance of improper influence are essential requirements for lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
• Serious and credible national security threats may lawfully justify halting a prosecution, provided the decision is reasoned and serves the overall public interest.
• The judgment highlights the complexity of prosecutorial decisions in contexts involving both law enforcement and broader national or international considerations.

Conclusion

The decision in R (Corner House Research) v Serious Fraud Office confirmed that while prosecutorial discretion must be exercised independently and judiciously, it can include broader public interests such as national security, especially where credible threats exist. This ruling clarifies the boundaries of lawful discretion and continues to shape judicial review of prosecutorial decisions in sensitive cases.