Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 MAY 2011

What Webster Means For Prosecutions Under The Bribery Act

In the last days of the Victorian law on corruption in England, the Court of Appeal in R v Webster [2011] EWCA Crim 2819 has handed down an important judgment about the reverse burden of proof, the presumption of corruption, in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (PCA).

United KingdomCriminal Law
Peter Binning
Peter Binning

In the last days of the Victorian law on corruption in England, the Court of Appeal in R v Webster [2011] EWCA Crim 2819 has handed down an important judgment about the reverse burden of proof, the presumption of corruption, in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 (PCA). As we look forward to 1 July and the coming into force of the Bribery Act 2010, it is worth looking at this decision, soon to be a footnote in legal history.

Although the Bribery Act contains no similar presumption of corruption, it does introduce the corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery for which proof beyond reasonable doubt is required that a person has been bribed by an associated person of the company for the purpose of retaining or obtaining business or some other advantage. Whilst no actual conviction is needed, it is likely to be hard to produce evidence that bribery has taken place in many cases; particularly without a reverse burden on the defendant. The case of Webster is an

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from