According to court filings by Ariel Armon, an acquitted defendant, dated 24 April 2026 and only released on 22 May 2026, an expert witness engaged by the SFO to support its bribery and corruption investigation enlisted a public official to channel improper payments to other officials in order to secure information and materials for the SFO’s inquiry. In February 2026, the SFO halted its case against Graeme Hossie, the former chief executive of London Mining, Rachel Rhodes, its ex-chief financial officer, and Armon, a former consultant. The agency has rejected any suggestion of misconduct. The trio had been charged by the SFO in June 2023 with conspiring to pay bribes to state officials and intermediaries to advance London Mining’s interests in Sierra Leone. Hossie, Rhodes, and Armon were scheduled for trial in April 2026. However, the SFO discontinued the...
New tool for sentencers in the Crown Court The Sentencing Council has released a streamlined edition of the SentencingACE tool, created to assist sentencers in the Crown Court in identifying the relevant statutory provisions and sentencing guidelines when passing sentence for an offence. Access the tool here......
In this issue: Criminal liability Criminal procedure and evidence Proceeds of crime Bribery, corruption, sanctions and export controls Cybercrime and data protection offences Environmental offences Fraud, forgery, tax and theft offences Health and safety and corporate manslaughter offences Insolvency offences and Companies Act offences Local authority prosecutions International Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Criminal liability Corporate criminal liability expansion-the Crime and Policing Act 2026 The Crime and Policing Act 2026 (CPA 2026) has now secured Royal Assent, heralding a substantial reset of corporate criminal liability in the UK. By broadening attribution through a widened ‘senior manager’ test, it steps away from the restrictive bounds of the traditional identification principle. From 29 June 2026, corporate criminal exposure will depend not on fixing misconduct to the board or the most senior executives, but on the real-world allocation and exercise of decision-making authority throughout the organisation......
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has released the results of a review evaluating financial services firms’ frameworks and controls relating to financial and trade sanctions. The publication sets out illustrations of effective and weak practice, plus development priorities, to support firms in meeting sanctions legislation. According to FCA, firms have advanced in avoiding sanctions breaches, yet deficiencies persist......
Drugs falling within the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA 1971) and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (MDR 2001), SI 2001/3998, are allocated classifications according to each substance’s potential effects on the user and on society more broadly. The classifications are:
These are termed controlled drugs.
Under MDA 1971, s 5, possession of a controlled drug is a criminal offence. The offence is triable either way. To prove possession of a controlled drug, the prosecution must show that the defendant had a controlled drug and was aware, or could reasonably have been aware, that it was in their possession or control. Practice Note: Possession of controlled drugs sets out the elements of the offence under MDA 1971, s 5, and provides the definition of possession from MDA 1971 and from case law...
The offences of common assault and battery Strictly speaking, assault and battery are separate summary offences. Assault arises where a defendant, intentionally or recklessly, causes another person to fear immediate and unlawful violence, whereas battery is made out when unlawful force is applied intentionally or recklessly. A battery may occur after an assault, but that is not invariably so... Both are summary-only offences, ordinarily tried in the magistrates’ court. However, where the incident is racially motivated, section 29 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998) permits trial either in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. See Racially or religiously aggravated assault below. The usual statutory limit for charging assault or battery is six months from the date of the offence. Different time limits may apply in proceedings for common assault or battery where the conduct alleged amounts to domestic violence and the complainant has... given a witness statement with a view to its possible admission as evidence in the proceedings, and provided that statement to a police constable, or a person authorised by a police constable to receive... ...
The offence of false imprisonment False imprisonment is an offence at common law, though it more frequently arises as a civil tort claim (see Practice Note: False imprisonment). It is triable only on indictment. The offence is closely related to the common law offence of kidnapping. The crucial difference is that, unlike kidnapping, there is no requirement to prove the victim was ‘taken and carried away’ (R v Hutchins [1988] Crim LR 379 (not reported by LexisNexis®)). See Practice Note: Common law offence of kidnapping. Elements of the offence In R v Rahman (1985) 81 Cr App Rep 349 (not reported by LexisNexis®), it was held that, on a charge of false imprisonment, the prosecution must establish: unlawful intentional or reckless restraint of a victim’s freedom of movement from a particular place Restraint of a victim's freedom of movement At common law, false imprisonment involves conduct by the defendant that directly and deliberately (or recklessly) brings about the victim’s confinement within an area defined by the defendant. For criminal liability to arise, the act must be accompanied by a distinct mental element (see further below)...
General Simple criminal damage is an either-way matter unless the alleged loss is £5,000 or below, in which case it is to be dealt with as summary-only. If the harm was caused by fire, or the racially aggravated variant is charged, it remains either-way even where the value falls under £5,000. Likewise, if the defendant faces two or more counts of the same or a similar kind and their combined value tops £5,000, the case is treated as either-way. Where the damage exceeds £5,000, such cases are ordinarily heard summarily unless the court considers any of these aggravating aspects apply and its powers would be inadequate: intentional fire-setting commission by a group damage of particularly high value clear racial motivation The Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines indicate that the Crown Court could be the proper forum where the value is above £10,000. Section 50 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSCA 2022) strengthens the...
The offence of actual bodily harm Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) can be tried in either the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. In most instances, ABH is tried in the magistrates' court unless that court considers its sentencing powers inadequate (see: Sentencing for ABH below). Elements of the offence Under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must prove: an assault or a battery; and that the assault or battery caused the victim actual bodily harm. Assault The prosecution must establish: conduct, done intentionally or recklessly, which causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence. It is unnecessary for any force to be used; the required element is the fear or anticipation of violence. Battery The prosecution must establish: the infliction of unlawful force upon another person; and that such force was applied intentionally or recklessly. The courts have held that the force need not be applied directly. For instance, in DPP v K (a minor) the Divisional Court ruled that a schoolboy who poured acid into a hand dryer, causing injury to another pupil...