Regina v George and Others: CACD 28 May 2010

The defendants were senior executives of BA. They made interlocutory appeals while undergoing trials for alleged price fixing under section 188 of the 2002 Act. The judge had ruled that the prosecutor need prove dishonesty only as against the defendants, and need not do so as against other parties to the transactions (similar officers of Virgin Atlantic Airways).
Held: The appeals failed. The judge had held that: ‘the language of the section is simple and straightforward. It provides that the offence is committed by an individual who, acting dishonestly, agrees with one or more others to make or implement one of the prescribed arrangements. The adverb ‘dishonestly’ may qualify the verb ‘agrees’ but the subject of the verb is ‘an individual’.’ That analysis was correct. There was no need to prove any dishonesty against other parties.
Maurice Kay LJ, Royce, Nicol JJ
[2010] EWCA Crim 1148, [2010] WLR (D) 147, [2010] UKCLR 1383, [2010] 4 All ER 984, (2010) 174 JP 313, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep FC 495, [2010] 2 Cr App R 17, [2010] 1 WLR 2676
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Enterprise Act 2002 188
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 February 2021; Ref: scu.416168