John Dougall, a former director of a UK medical devices manufacturer, became the first British citizen to be convicted in the UK of a corruption offence for overseas corruption of foreign public officials. Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal has reduced his sentence to a suspended prison term, but reiterated the seriousness of corruption offences.

Background

Prior to his conviction, Mr Dougall had entered into a cooperation agreement with the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”), as a result of which the SFO had made representations on his behalf that a suspended sentence would be appropriate. Although this was not accepted by the lower-court Judge, he gave permission to appeal the sentence due to the public policy issues raised.

On 29 April 2010, the Court of Appeal suspended Mr Dougall’s sentence in light of the particular circumstances of the case, including: “[T]he value of the defendant’s early admissions of guilt, the considerable assistance given by him to the authorities investigating complex multi-jurisdictional corruption, and the public interest in bringing these cases to justice, as well as the contribution the defendant may already have made and intends to continue to make to that process…” .

Citing the decision of Thomas LJ in the recent Innospec case (see our earlier Law-Now), the Court of Appeal has emphasised the “true constitutional position” that it is for the Court (and not the SFO) to make sentencing decisions in cases of fraud or corruption. The decision also highlights aggravating and mitigating factors that the Court may take into account when sentencing an individual convicted of corruption who has formally agreed to co-operate with the investigating authorities.

A full copy of the judgment can be found @