The three defendants appealed convictions on a plea of guilty of corruption for ‘spot fixing’ as a player in cricket matches. The defendants had signed contracts not to do anything to bring the Pakistan Cricket Board into disrepute and to comply with a Code of Conduct.
Held: ‘We cannot find anything in the judgment in Ch’ng Poh which lends support to Mr Milliken-Smith’s argument, and if it did, the submission would be wholly inconsistent with the clear statutory language.’ The way in which Butt, Amir and Asif, and Westfield performed was personal to them and clean contrary to and far removed from the wishes of the Boards which employed them. Nevertheless, looking at the realities of the situation there could on the evidence have been nothing closer to the heart of the affairs or business of a cricket Board than the performance the players selected by them to represent their and his country, or their and his county.
The offence contrary to s.42 is committed at the moment when ‘anything’ is done ‘for the purpose of enabling or assisting’ anyone else to cheat at gambling. It has nothing to do with the proper regulation of gambling: it simply creates an offence of cheating. In these cases the offence was complete before any bet was placed. The ‘fix’ was organised in England, the matches which were the target of the ‘fixing’ took place here, and the rewards for participating were also paid here. In short the criminal conduct prohibited by s.42 occurred within the jurisdiction.
Lord Judge CJ, Openshaw, Irwin JJ
[2012] EWCA Crim 1186, [2012] Lloyd’s Rep FC 593, [2012] 2 Cr App R 18, [2012] Crim LR 965, [2012] 3 All ER 73, [2013] 1 WLR 1041, [2012] WLR(D) 172
Bailii, WLRD
Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 1, Gambling Act 2005 42
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption v Ch’Ng Poh (Hong Kong) PC 16-Jun-1997
Ch’ng Poh was a dishonest criminal appealing against conviction. His solicitor, ‘A’, was a partner in a firm of solicitors. To improve the prospects of a successful appeal by CP, bribes were offered through ‘A’ by CP to two individuals. A warrant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.459847
