Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 2 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Bribery Bill [HL].
Bribery Bill [HL]
Again, I am grateful for the intervention. It would be an evidential matter in the trial. Bearing in mind that the burden of proof is upon the company to show that it has adequate procedures, it would be a question of evidence in the case that the company had gone to the unit that I suggest and had obtained advice, and that it was relying on the advice that it had received. If that were the case, it would be quickly apparent whether any potential offence had been committed by the company, were the proceedings ever to be brought, if it could say in a letter to the prosecuting authority, "Well, we asked for advice, we got it and we followed it". I would imagine that, save in the most exceptional case, that would prevent a prosecution. I hope that that assists the noble Lord.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 717 c148-9
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Business Corruption Fraud Intelligence services Expenditure Gratuities GCHQ Ministerial powers National security Prosecutions Public service Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Treaties Trade Corporate hospitality Sales promotions OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Bribery
- Legislation
- Bribery Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 19:47:43 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617932
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617932
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617932