George & Ors, R v

George & Ors, R v

Section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002 does not require proof of mutual dishonesty; it is sufficient that the defendant dishonestly agreed to the prohibited arrangement, regardless of the state of mind of the other party.

Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant: Martin George; Appellant: Iain Burns; Appellant: Alan Burnett; Appellant: Andrew Crawley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Preparatory Hearing
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Cartel Offence, Dishonesty, Enterprise Act 2002 Section 188, Interpretation of Statutory Offences
Criminal Law Competition Law Cartel Offence Dishonesty Enterprise Act 2002 Section 188 Interpretation of Statutory Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Martin George

Appellant

Iain Burns

Appellant

Alan Burnett

Appellant

Andrew Crawley

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Preparatory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002 requires proof of mutual dishonesty for criminal liability
  2. 2 Whether unilateral dishonesty by the defendant suffices for conviction under section 188

Ratio Decidendi

Section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002 does not require proof of mutual dishonesty; it is sufficient that the defendant dishonestly agreed to the prohibited arrangement, regardless of the state of mind of the other party.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against the trial judge's ruling dismissed; trial to proceed.