header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 April 2019 / Eoin O’Shea
Issue: 7837 / Categories: Features , Bribery
printer mail-detail

The Bribery Act: beyond adequate?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll