The appellants were prosecuted and convicted in unrelated proceedings arising from alleged criminal activity involving ‘spot fixing’. Each pleaded guilty following rulings by the trial judge on the ambit and effect of the charges he faced, and then appealed contending that the trial judge’s rulings were wrong.
M was an agent for various players of the Pakistan national cricket team. The proceedings against him followed a well-publicised undercover operation by the News of the World. M was convicted on two counts. The first alleged that he conspired to give corrupt payments to 3 such players as a reward for ‘doing acts in relation to the affairs of their employer, the Pakistan Cricket Board’. The acts were to identify in advance occasions when they would play in a specific, previously agreed, manner. The charge involved a conspiracy to act contrary to s 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. The second charge alleged conspiracy to enable others to cheat at gambling, contrary to s 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, by passing to those others the information obtained from the players.
W was an employee of Essex County Cricket Club, and pleaded guilty to accepting or obtaining corrupt payments, contrary to s 1 of the 1906 Act, for bowling in Natwest Pro 40 match in a way calculated and intended to allow the scoring of runs. A second count, of assisting another to cheat at gambling contrary to s 42 of the 2005 Act, was not pursued. He was offered and accepted £6,000 deliberately to concede more than 12 runs off his first over in that match.
M and W each contended that a vital element of the charges against them could not be proved because their conduct was not “aimed at” the PCB or the ECCC. In support of that argument they cited the Privy Council decision in Commissioner of the Independent Commission against Corruption v Ch’ng Poh  1 WLR 1175.
M contended in addition that the Gambling Act conspiracy charge against him could not be made out because the gambling which occurred or may have occurred as a result of his conduct had taken place abroad, with the consequence that the English court had no jurisdiction to try him for the offence.