The basis for the legal challenge is that the SFO failed properly to apply prosecution guidance (including its own guidance). In particular, the plea agreement reached fails to reflect the seriousness and extent of BAE's alleged offending, which includes corruption and bribery, and to provide the court with adequate sentencing powers.
The groups argue that the SFO has unlawfully concluded that factors weighing against prosecuting the more serious charges of corruption outweigh those in favour of prosecution.
Nicholas Hildyard, for The Corner House, says:
"Plea bargains should only ever be entertained when companies have really come clean. BAE has not. Once again, an SFO decision has reinforced the UK's reputation for letting big companies get away with bribing. Once again, it has shown a blatant disregard for the rule of law."
Kaye Stearman, CAAT's spokesperson, says:
"The SFO plea bargain is unlawful. Investigations into alleged corruption in at least three countries have simply been dropped. It is in the public interest that BAE should not be let off the hook."
The groups' lawyers also requested that the Serious Fraud Office delay applying for court approval of its settlement with BAE Systems. If it does not do so, the two groups will seek an injunction against the court application.
Leave a comment