A suggestion that the government may have simply �rolled over� in the face of threats from Saudi Arabia and stopped investigations into bribery and corruption allegations involving BAe Systems was strongly denied yesterday.

JOHN ASTON

A suggestion that the government may have simply "rolled over" in the face of threats from Saudi Arabia and stopped investigations into bribery and corruption allegations involving BAe Systems was strongly denied at the High Court in London yesterday.

A senior judge said that, as far as the public knew, there was no request to the Saudis to "have another think".

Lord Justice Moses said the court had seen nothing to suggest that the government had done "anything other than roll over" in December 2006.

An attempt could have been made, he said, to get the threat to withdraw co-operation with the UK, including over security issues, lifted.

One way would have been to suggest to the Saudis that they would be outraged if someone marched into their country and called on them to stop their systems of punishment, said the judge.

He added: "No-one said You can't talk to us like that'.

The High Court was hearing a challenge to the Serious Fraud Office's decision to drop inquiries into alleged bribery and corruption involving arms deals between BAe Systems and Saudi Arabia.

Philip Sales, QC, appearing for the SFO, said the "think again" issue had been raised by the judge during the hearing and he had no opportunity to prepare to meet it.

He told the judge: "You don't have full sight of the underlying material."

The SFO director had had "no choice" but to stop the BAe investigation on national security grounds.

The threat from the Saudis "could not be obviated sensibly by other means".

The judge suggested that, in reality, the Saudi threat involved saying that Britain would not be told if the Saudis learned that someone was going to "blow you up".

Mr Sales said the threat of withdrawal of co-operation went wider. He said the government had decided that stopping the investigation "was of critical importance to our national security in the light of the Islamist terrorist threat".

"There was no other viable choice available to the SFO director other than to accept, with very great reluctance, that the investigation should be stopped".

The SFO inquiry arose out of BAe's £43bn Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia in 1985, which provided Tornado and Hawk jets plus other military equipment.

In December 2006, the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, announced that the probe was to be discontinued.

SFO Director Robert Wardle put out a press statement saying the decision had been made following representations to him and Lord Goldsmith that the move was necessary "to safeguard national and international security".

Lord Justice Moses suggested a possible view was that it was "just as if a gun had been held to the director's head".

Dinah Rose, QC, told the court there had been a number of things the government could have done, other than give in to Saudi threats. She was appearing for Corner House Research, which campaigns against corruption in international trade, and the Campaign Against Arms.

The pressure groups are jointly asking High Court judges to quash the decision to drop the BAe investigation. Ms Rose said Tony Blair, then prime minister, had "stepped over the boundaries of what was permissible" and wrongly interfered in a legal matter to block the investigation.