R v Wilson [2013] EWCA Crim 1780 – Articles 32(8) and 33 RRFSO –s 2 CApA.
1) if the court is sure that an offence was due to D’s consent, connivance or neglect, a due diligence defence cannot possibly arise.
2) the judge properly directed jury on offence by company and consent, connivance or neglect by director.
3) article 32(8) does not create its own offence.
- there is no discrete stand alone offence of consent, connivance etc.
4) where indictment merely defective and not a nullity, a conviction may be safe.
- whether conviction unsafe was a question of fact and degree, in which prejudice or unfairness to D loomed large.
5) when considering consequences of an error therein, an indictment should be looked at as a whole.
- error in wrongly labelling offence as falling under article 32(8) was a defect rather than a nullity; the indictment did not charge an offence which did not exist.
- no unfairness or prejudice to D where error in labelling did not detract from clarity of offence being alleged.
- D should not be able to rely on an error in an indictment where it is a “resort to undue technicality”.
undefined: unpaid