Wilson v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1780 (23 October 2013)

Wilson v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1780 (23 October 2013)

Article 32(8) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 does not create a discrete criminal offence. It renders directors liable for the same substantive offence as the body corporate, provided the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. The indictment against the appellant, charging him solely under article 32(8) without reference to the substantive offences, purported to charge offences unknown to law. This was not a mere defect but a nullity, rendering the convictions unsafe and incapable of being remedied by amendment or substitution.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Crim 1780
Parties
Appellant: Michael Wilson; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.
Legal Topics
Fire Safety, Corporate Criminal Liability, Indictment Validity, Director Liability, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Regulatory Law Fire Safety Corporate Criminal Liability Indictment Validity Director Liability Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does article 32(8) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 create a discrete criminal offence?
  2. 2 Was the indictment against the appellant a nullity or merely defective?
  3. 3 Is the defect in the indictment remediable or does it render the conviction unsafe?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 32(8) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 does not create a discrete criminal offence. It renders directors liable for the same substantive offence as the body corporate, provided the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. The indictment against the appellant, charging him solely under article 32(8) without reference to the substantive offences, purported to charge offences unknown to law. This was not a mere defect but a nullity, rendering the convictions unsafe and incapable of being remedied by amendment or substitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.

Orders

  • Convictions against Michael Wilson quashed.