18. Competition law Note-taking

Make one-page Notes or a Mind Map of Text 2. Be ready to talk in front of the class using your notes.

19. Law in the press Law

A friend of yours needs help with some legal terminology. She has sent you these extracts with underlined phrases from an article in The Times. The article is about an indictment of four British companies for conspiracy to defraud by entering into secret agreements to fix the prices and manipulate the supply of drugs. The extracts below explain why the indictment was found to be defective by the House of Lords. Write your friend an email explaining the underlined phrases so that their meaning becomes clear to a non-lawyer. If necessary, refer back to the example in Chapter 8.

Their Lordships said that it could be seen from the prosecution case statement that its essence was that (1) price-fixing when accompanied by secretive and misleading behaviour of the kind alleged, was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary citizen and was sufficient without more to found a prosecution for (2) conspiracy to defraud.

The contrary submission advanced by counsel for the defendants was that price­fixing agreements, described as (3) “cartel behaviour”, were not in themselves criminal, even if made secretly and with an element of deception which might be widely regarded as dishonest. The mere entry into a secret cartel, it was submitted, was not criminal and was to be distinguished from positive action such as (4) deceptive misrepresentation.

Their Lordships had considered those arguments in Norris v Government of the United States of America (The Times March 14, 2008; [2008] 1 AC 920)... In Norris Lord Bingham of Cornhill said that unless there were aggravating features such" as fraud, misrepresentation, violence, intimidation or inducement of a breach of contract, (5) agreements in restraint of trade, even if they might be unreasonable in the public interest, were not actionable or indictable.

The indictment did not isolate and charge any specific aggravating elements which would elevate price-fixing into an indictable conspiracy to defraud, and was therefore defective as it stood. However, the indictment and case statement were in principle capable of amendment in suitable terms in order to accord with the views expressed by their Lordships in Norris. Any application to amend had to be made to the trial judge, Mr Justice Pitchford, and accordingly (6) the matter was remitted to him. (‘Price-fixing in itself insufficient to establish conspiracy to defraud.’ The Times, 1 January, 2009)

Public Speaking

19. Discussion Speaking

To the leader. You will be asked to lead a discussion with your group around a problem related to the subject matter of this chapter (see Appendix 7).

To the participants. Build your arguments on this pattern: a phrase signalling your intention - your argument - supporting statements. To signal intention, use the language you learned in the ‘Public Speaking’ sections of this book (see Appendix 1).

After the discussion you will be asked to evaluate the leader’s performance (use the checklist in Appendix 7). Your own participation in the discussion will be assessed on the following criteria: 1 positive contribution; 2 good language; 3 good communication skills that include sensitivity to turn taking, avoiding monopolising the discussion, etc.; 4 use of functional phrases.