Key Facts
- •Judicial review of the Secretary of State for International Trade's July 2020 decision to continue granting arms export licenses to Saudi Arabia.
- •Challenge focused on airstrikes in the Yemen conflict and alleged breaches of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
- •Claimants (CAAT) and Interveners (Mwatana and Oxfam) argued the decision was irrational.
- •The 2020 decision followed a previous challenge which was partially successful in the Court of Appeal.
- •The Secretary of State's decision-making process involved multiple government departments (DIT, MOD, FCDO) and relied on various sources of information, including open source reporting, the UN Panel of Experts, and NGOs (e.g., Mwatana).
- •A closed hearing was conducted due to sensitive information under the Justice and Security Act 2013.
Legal Principles
Export Control Act 2002
Export Control Act 2002
Consolidated Criteria (Criterion 2c)
Parliamentary written statement, March 24, 2014
Principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocols I and II of 1977, customary international law
Judicial Review – Irrationality
Case law (R (Lord Carlile) v Home Secretary, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman, A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Bank Mellat v HM Treasury, R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed
The court found no irrationality in the Secretary of State's decision-making process or conclusions. The process was thorough and considered a wide range of evidence, including open and closed material. The IHL analysis, while not determinative, was a component of a broader risk assessment. The court found no flaws in the methodology or conclusions regarding patterns of IHL violations.