Judges sided with the government, finding the secretary of state for international trade had followed the risk assessment required as part of the decision to licence arms sales to the kingdom.

“Different people in society may or may not approve of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. They may nor may not share the Secretary of State’s view about the assessment of risk,” they wrote.

CAAT is claiming that “much of the evidence that the judges used to make their ruling was shared in closed sessions that CAAT was not able to hear.”

I say their (CAAT) evidence is lacking strength. In that, I mean their evidence is limited and that they reject contributions from certain fractions.

Furthermore, the British government and the British courts are intertwined. Hence, they would never take a stance against each other, even if it is about Human Rights.