It might have been argued that the words "or elsewhere" in section 3 (5) (c) of the 1987 Act referred to other parts of the British Islands (or other British territories) and not to other countries, because (inter alia) the 1987 Act was not expressed to give effect to the 1959 convention, and no provision was made for the governmental direction or guidance required for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention, the Director of the serious Fraud office not being a person able or authorised to make the kinds of governmental and political judgments which Article 2 requires. But this argument would in our judgment be misconceived, for two main reasons:

(1) "competent authorities" are expressly stated to include persons or bodies having functions "under the law of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom";

(2) when the Bill was in Standing Committee of the House of Commons, and the phrase "or elsewhere" was under consideration, the Minister of State at the Home office stated that:

"Elsewhere" means everywhere other than England and Wales [our underlining]. Information should be made available at the discretion of the serious Fraud Office because it is the only way in which we shall be able to continue to do business with other countries ... Crimes such as fraud are not confined to the borders of one country. For example, relevant information will be available on anything happening in the City of London and will almost certainly involve transactions overseas". (House of Commons Official Report: Standing Committee F, 20 January 1987, col. 158, quoted in Halsbury's statutes, Vol. 12 (1997 Reissue), Criminal Law, page 995).

In our judgment the use of the phrase "or elsewhere" in section 3 of the 1987 Act was intended to enable the Director (or a member of the SFO) to provide information for the purposes of a prosecution in any foreign country whatever.