Wilson v R

Wilson v R

Article 32(8) does not create a discrete offence; it imposes secondary liability for the substantive offence committed by the body corporate. The indictment was defective in mislabelling the offence but was not a nullity, as the particulars were clear, no prejudice or unfairness was caused, and the appellant was not misled. The conviction is not unsafe and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Wilson; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fire Safety, Corporate Criminal Liability, Indictment Defects, Director's Liability

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

  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 a conviction unsafe where the indictment mislabels the offence but particulars are clear and no prejudice is caused?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 32(8) does not create a discrete offence; it imposes secondary liability for the substantive offence committed by the body corporate. The indictment was defective in mislabelling the offence but was not a nullity, as the particulars were clear, no prejudice or unfairness was caused, and the appellant was not misled. The conviction is not unsafe and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld; no amendment or substitution of offence ordered.