COMMUNIQUE ON THE PRIVY COUNCIL DECISION IN THE MEDPOINT CASE

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has today delivered its judgment in  the  appeal  of  DPP  v  Pravind  Kumar  Jugnauth  [2019]  UKPC  8.   The  Office of  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions  welcomes  the  decision  of  the  Privy Council as it sheds light on matters which were up to now in controversy.

In  a  Communiqué  issued  by  this  Office  on  08  June  2016,  we  explained  our decision  to  appeal  to  the  Privy  Council.   Our  Office  was  of  the  view  that  the judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  gave  rise  to  important  questions,  crucial  to establishing  an  offence  under  section  13(2)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption Act (the POCA), in particular –

(a)        the requisite degree of knowledge and criminal intent of a public official to  establish  an  offence  of  Conflict  of  Interests,  and  whether  good  faith can be invoked as a defence;

(b)        the meaning of the term “personal interest” and whether it excludes the

shareholding of the relative of a public official in a company;

(c)       the   nature   of   participation   in   proceedings   prohibited   under   that provision  and  whether  a  public  official  is  precluded  from  taking  any step in the execution of a contract which has been awarded by a public body to a company in which a relative of that public official has shares.

In  granting  leave  to  appeal  to  the  Privy  Council,  the  Supreme  Court  agreed that the matters referred to above raised substantial and significant issues of law of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Privy Council for determination.

We  note  that  the  Privy  Council  in  its  judgment  has  accepted  our  position  on the  points  of  law  in  issue  in  this  case  and  has  confirmed  the  legal  reasoning adopted  by  the  Intermediate  Court.    However,  it  has  also  found  that  on  the facts  of  the  present  case,  payment  to  Medpoint  would  have  been  effected irrespective of the re-allocation of funds and, therefore, Mrs Malhotra had no personal interest within the meaning of section 13(2) of  the POCA.

The judgment of the Privy Council will undoubtedly be of valuable assistance to our Office when deciding future cases under section 13(2) of the POCA.

Office  of  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions

25  February  2019

Posted by Minority Voice on Feb 25 2019. Filed under Actualités, Economie, En Direct, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry