header-logo header-logo

18 April 2019 / Eoin O’Shea
Issue: 7837 / Categories: Features , Bribery
printer mail-detail

The Bribery Act: beyond adequate?

Eoin O’Shea reflects on the significance of the House of Lords’ recommendations in relation to taking bribery prevention to the next level

  • The House of Lords’ review of the Bribery Act 2010 makes two particularly important interventions: the first relates to interpretation of the notorious ‘adequate procedures’ test; the second is a strong push for government to reform ‘white collar’ criminal law so that vicarious liability applies to a far wider range of offences.

The Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010) is one of the more acclaimed pieces of legislation of recent years. It has been the subject of numerous superlatives: ‘the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world’, ‘the gold standard’ and so on. In 2018 the House of Lords constituted a Select Committee, chaired by Lord Saville, to consider its effects (see also Lord Saville's NLJ article, 'Bribery in the spotlight'). After a lengthy process of taking evidence from a wide variety of interested parties, the committee issued its report on 14 March 2019 (The Bribery Act 2010: post-legislative scrutiny,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll