There is no need to remind anyone about the alleged ‘phone hacking’ scandal and the demise of the News of the World. The ongoing saga raises issue after issue of a legal and ethical nature, including the conduct of not only the media, but also the police and others in the public sector.

When we examine some of the activity alleged, there is little doubt that corruption has been central to the success of the dubious practices, that have caused so much outrage, to politicians, celebrities and sickeningly, to the families of the victims already devastated by divers catastrophes. The kind of information required to facilitate these crimes is often held by those paid from the public purse, whether in the police, the employ of the Royal Family, or in one on the many public organisations holding a massive amount of personnel data on people. Offering some financial advantage to obtain this data, and accepting some favour, could, post July 1st, be captured by the Bribery Act. A media company, by offering such an advantage to a public servant to get them to perform their function improperly, stands to be prosecuted for offering a bribe, whilst any senior manager who ‘connived’ with such a payment could face prosecution and up to ten years imprisonment, which would make an appearance before a select committee pale into insignificance. Then follows the inquisition into the ‘adequate procedures’ the media company had in place to avail itself of the defence against the offence of failing to prevent the bribery.

Now to the public servants.

Remember, the act applies to all UK companies, public organisations ,citizens and individuals ordinarily resident here, wherever the offending takes place. Therefore it naturally follows that the public sector is subject to the same requirements as private commercial organisations. In fact, the Joint Prosecution Guidance issued by the SFO and DPP, states that although a robust approach to tackling commercial bribery is one of the Act’s principal objectives, there may be many examples outside this sphere where individuals attempt to influence the application of rules, regulations and normal procedures, which will fall within scope.

Individuals within the public sector will obviously be susceptible to the passive bribery offence, necessitating anti-corruption measures to protect the public purse. However, public organisations will also need to risk assess the likelihood of people acting on their behalf committing the active bribery offence, and if identified, have adequate procedures in place to prevent it. This is particularly relevant in view of proposed spending cuts, where public sector organisations find themselves fighting for survival, and keen to promote their own ‘business’ areas. It may be necessary to ensure that employees know and understand the nature of bribery and how it can be committed. Failure to have adequate procedures in place raises the embarrassing prospect of a public sector organisation facing prosecution for the corporate offence of failing to prevent bribery.

Stuart Melhuish
Stuart Melhuish is a Director of Venalitas a specialist anti corruption consultancy, training and consulting company.