Bribery Bill [HL]

I can only quote from the Law Commission’s report. Paragraph 2.33 states: ""Both the 1889 and the 1906 Acts require the defendant to have acted ‘corruptly’, but neither provides a definition. The majority of the House of Lords in Cooper v Slade (1885)"—" the case that the noble and learned Lord mentioned— ""took the view that ‘corruptly’ did not mean "dishonestly" but rather ‘doing an act which the law forbids as tending to corrupt’. This was thrown into doubt by Lindley (1957) … which suggested that dishonesty must be proved. Yet Smith (1960) … and most recent appellate authority Wellburn (1979); Harvey (1999); Godden-Wood (2001) have favoured the earlier view, requiring proof of intent to corrupt without needing dishonesty. The lack of clarity surrounding this critical adverb weakens the effective application of the law of bribery"."