UK: England and Wales: did the company receive a fair trial?

Judgment was handed down yesterday in Alstom Network UK Ltd, R. v (Rev 1) [2019] EWCA Crim 1318. The court was required to consider whether a company that had been found guilty of conspiracy had received a fair trial where the individual - the company's directing mind and will, in respect of whose actions the company's liability was based - had not been indicted as a co-conspirator and was not available to give evidence at the company's trial.

The court unanimously rejected the argument that the trial had been unfair, noting that although counsel for the company "was at pains to distance himself from any suggestion that a corporate conspirator could never be tried in the absence of a [directing mind and will], it is plain that, if well-founded, his principal submission would have wide and untoward ramifications .... it can only be in a very rare case that the absence of a [directing mind and will] would itself be determinative of the question whether a corporate defendant could receive a fair trial. " (paras. [53] and [58]).

UK: ECHR inquiry - the fairness, transparency and diversity of FTSE350 board appointments

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published the results of its inquiry into the fairness, transparency and diversity of FTSE350 board appointments: see here (pdf). A summary of the report is available here. Whilst welcoming the increase in women on company boards, including the fact that women now occupy over 25% of FTSE100 board positions, the report reveals wide differences at individual company level across the FTSE100 and FTSE350. For example, 45 individual FTSE100 companies failed to reach the 25% target set by Lord Davies. Other findings are reported in respect of the recruitment process and recommendations are also made for improving board diversity.