Today, in an important ruling with wider implications for open justice, Spotlight on Corruption won the right to publish the transcripts and Court documents from a criminal trial that highlighted UK government complicity with a foreign bribery scheme.
A case of significant public interest
Between November 2023 and March 2024, Southwark Crown Court heard the trial of two men on charges of bribing public officials on behalf of an Airbus subsidiary, GPT Special Project Management Ltd, in Saudi Arabia between 2007 and 2012. The bribery related to a multi-billion-pound UK government defence contract to provide military communications equipment to the Saudi National Guard, known as the SANGCOM project. GPT pleaded guilty to the bribery and was sentenced in April 2021 for making corrupt payments on the project.
The men were acquitted of corruption in March 2024 after they argued that the payments were made with the full knowledge and authorisation of the Ministry of Defence (MOD). One of the men was convicted of misconduct in public office relating to when he had been previously employed by the MOD.
The trial exposed high-level knowledge in the UK government and MOD about alleged corruption that had been going on for decades. Evidence emerged that suggested that the MOD may have continued to facilitate payments to Saudi officials after allegations of corrupt activity emerged, and on other UK government defence contracts with Saudi Arabia.
The case followed the outcry over political pressure on the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in 2006 to close down an investigation into the Al Yamamah bribery scandal. BAE Systems was under investigation by the agency for allegedly paying huge bribes to Saudi officials on a government-to-government agreement between the UK and Saudi Arabia.
That decision to close the investigation was heavily criticised at the time, including by the OECD. BAE later settled with the US authorities on charges of false-accounting in relation to Al Yamamah and other cases and was fined $400 million.
Evidence that came out of the 2023/24 trial sheds important light on the government’s continued authorisation of payments on the Al Yamamah deal, and on other arrangements for facilitating defence contracts with Saudi Arabia beyond SANGCOM.
Spotlight’s application to publish court documents
Over the course of two trials involving Mr Cook and Mr Mason (of which the first collapsed) Spotlight monitored dozens of pre-trial hearings, and reviewed multiple court documents. During the trial, we successfully applied with journalists at the Guardian for the transcripts and a bundle of 800 documents that was provided to the jury.
After the trial concluded, Spotlight wrote to the Court requesting permission to publish that material in order to advance the principle of open justice. We said this would increase public scrutiny of decision-making in the criminal justice system, provide a more complete picture of what the SFO’s investigation revealed, and inform public understanding and scrutiny of the MOD and government’s role, both in the historic corruption and the more recent allegations of corrupt activity.
The SFO opposed that request and Mr Justice Picken considered the matter at a hearing on 10 December 2024, where Spotlight was represented by Jude Bunting KC.
What did Mr Justice Picken decide?
In the judgment dated 17 December 2024, Picken J concluded decisively that Spotlight does not require the Court’s permission to publish the transcripts and jury bundle.
Picken J found that there is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, the Practice Directions 2023 or previous cases that would require the Court’s permission to publish the jury bundle or the transcripts. Indeed, previous cases imply that once documents are provided by the Court, it is up to the recipient to decide what use to make of them.
Picken J found that any conditions on use of documents would need to be imposed when the Court decides whether to grant access to them in the first place, and highlighted that “The whole purpose of permitting third party access to Court documents is to enable those documents to be reported.” [61]
The SFO had argued that Spotlight would need to show that publishing the documents is necessary and desirable. Picken J rejected this argument for two key reasons.
Firstly, because Spotlight is free to publish what was said in open court (unless restrictions apply), we should not have to persuade the Court that publishing transcripts is necessary, particularly given that these provide an accurate record of what was said.
Secondly, the decision of what it is necessary to publish from a criminal trial is a question of editorial discretion. Picken J noted that the Court imposing its own editorial judgment over what may be published “would run entirely counter to the open justice principle.” [67]
Significantly, having decided that the Court’s permission to publish is not required, Picken J went on to find that – even if the necessary and desirable test applied – it would be met and publication should be permitted. “This is because, given the unique public interest of this prosecution, the complexity and length of the material, the presentation of all of the transcripts to the public – and the jury bundle – will enable the public better to understand and assess these proceedings.” [75]
The need for scrutiny of the government and MOD
After the trial finished in March 2024, Spotlight called for:
- A full, independent judge-led inquiry into the nature and extent of the government’s involvement in facilitating payments to Saudi public officials, and whether arrangements to do so have ceased or are ongoing.
- The House of Commons’ Defence Select Committee to undertake an urgent review of what mechanisms the MOD has put in place to prevent future bribery taking place and to protect whistleblowers.
- The National Audit Office to conduct a review of MOD’s bank accounts used in its Saudi government to government arrangements, and publish a report about the risks of corruption in these arrangements.
This scrutiny was essential in light of the serious questions raised by the evidence, and given that the Court was only required to look at the government and MOD’s involvement in potentially corrupt behaviour to the extent that it was relevant to the defence of the two men.
However, nine months later, there has been no inquiry, and no review by the Defence Select Committee or the National Audit Office, of the MOD and government’s role.
Spotlight will be publishing the transcripts and jury bundle on its website in due course. It is of fundamental importance that this transparency leads to greater scrutiny of the role of the MOD and government on government-to-government defence deals such as this to ensure that the UK government is not itself complicit with foreign bribery.
A decision with wider implications for open justice
This judgment is a resounding affirmation of the importance of ensuring open justice.
Open justice is not a luxury – it is essential for journalists, public interest reporters and academic researchers, as well as civil society organisations like us to do our work effectively. But it is also at heart about promoting public access and understanding of court proceedings to sustain public confidence in the rule of law and the administration of justice.
With a decline in court reporting and most specialist legal press coverage behind paywalls, Picken J’s ruling reflects the reality that “in truth, only a small minority of citizens can attend every day of a court hearing.” [53]
As highlighted in our ‘Veil of Secrecy’ report, cited in today’s judgment, open justice is especially important in white collar crime and corruption cases which are often subject to extensive reporting restrictions and can take many months to conclude. It is especially important in sensitive cases like the SFO’s prosecution of politically connected firms engaged in bribery on government-backed defence projects.
Ultimately, this case will have wider implications, given that as Picken J recognises, the open justice principle “is important and of universal application” [76]. We hope that this judgment is one part of making this principle a day-to-day, lived reality in the courts of England and Wales.
