CAAT wins judicial review, saying UK-made weapons may be used in humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen

Anti-arms trade campaigners have won the first round of a legal attempt to prevent the government from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia because of allegations of widespread civilian deaths in Yemen.

In a hearing at the high court in London Mr Justice Gilbart gave permission for a judicial review into whether arms sales to the country breach British and European weapons export laws. The hearings must go ahead by 1 February next year, the judge ruled.

The government’s weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations have faced intensive scrutiny since the Saudi-led coalition began an intensive bombing campaign of Yemen in March 2015, which aimed to put down a Houthi rebellion but has allegedly led to thousands of civilian casualties.

Leigh Day solicitors, on behalf of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), argued that the indiscriminate nature of the airstrikes by Saudi Arabia in Yemen meant that there was a significant chance of any weapons sold there being used for human rights abuses, making them illegal under British and European arms export laws.

CAAT spokesman Andrew Smith told the Guardian: “We certainly welcome that this judicial review will give these arms sales the full scrutiny it deserves. These arms sales should haver have been approved in the first place: Saudi Arabia has an abhorrent human rights record and it has created a humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.”



Saudi Arabia is the British government’s biggest weapons client: the government has licensed exports worth £6.8bn since David Cameron entered Downing Street, including £2.8bn on aircraft, munitions and other weaponry since the bombing of Yemen began, according to figures assembled by CAAT.



British government ministers have repeatedly described the UK’s weapons exports system as among the most robust and thoroughly regulated in the world, but campaigners say that British-made weapons are being used to commit human rights abuses, particularly in the Yemen campaign.



Why is Britain still selling Saudi Arabia arms to use in Yemen? | David Wearing Read more

A UN report leaked to the Guardian in January found “widespread and systematic” targeting of civilians in the Saudi-led strikes, and identified 2,682 civilians killed in such strikes.



The report found 119 strikes that it said violated international humanitarian law, including attacks on health facilities, schools, wedding parties and camps for internally displaced people and refugees.



The high court case calls for the government to suspend all current export licences and refuse all new licences to Saudi Arabia where it is possible the weapons could be used in Yemen, while the business secretary, Sajid Javid, reviews whether the sales are legal.



Under UK arms sales rules, export licences should not be granted if there is a “clear risk” that such equipment could be used to break international humanitarian law. Licensing is overseen by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

An influential cross-party committee is also examining the government’s weapons exports to Saudi and its allies with an inquiry into the use of British-made weapons in Yemen.



In April, ministers from the defence, business, international development and foreign departments appeared before the committee to defend the arms sales as legal and important to British-Saudi relations. They said that British personnel provided advice and training to Saudi forces in how to use weapons systems, but that British personnel played no role in selecting targets or in other operational roles.

This contrasted with comments by the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, when the campaign started that the UK would support the fight against the Houthis “in every practical way short of engaging in combat”.



Earlier this month, the Saudi government successfully lobbied the UN to remove the coalition from a blacklist of countries that had caused significant harm to children in war. UN general secretary Ban Ki-moon said that the pressure was unacceptable but “I also had to consider the very real prospect that millions of other children would suffer grievously if, as was suggested to me, countries would de-fund many UN programmes”.