The prosecution claim that Westfield agreed to concede 12 runs in the first over of his spell. In the event he only conceded 10, and Westfield’s defence counsel said that this demonstrated he did not go through with the plan.
The maximum penalty for the corruption offence is seven years, and the recent case of the jailed Pakistani cricketers Salman Butt, Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Amir offers a recent precedent. Amir pleaded guilty to his part in spot-fixing in the Lord’s Test.
Westfield’s barrister, Mark Milliken-Smith, asked the judge to consider suspending any custodial sentence.
Westfield conceded 60 runs from seven overs as Durham scored 276-6, a target ultimately overhauled by Essex, who won by seven wickets with 19 balls to spare.
It is not known who profited from gambling with the knowledge that Westfield was bowling to order, but corrupt bets are not thought to have been laid in this country.
Westfield’s conviction comes just three months after the conviction of the three Pakistani players and raises fresh questions about the integrity of the game.
Westfield’s offences may have been committed at a lower-profile level than the Pakistan case, but they are arguably far more serious for the English game.
While the Pakistan convictions rested on evidence collected by the News of the World, which conducted a sting operation on fixer Mazher Majeed, the Westfield case is evidence of actual fixing taking place in the domestic game.
The fact it took place at a lower level is perhaps no coincidence. The Essex v Durham game was shown live by Sky and as such was available to view around the world, including in the sub-continent where huge amounts of illegal gambling is conducted on cricket.
With lower wages and less scrutiny of matches, domestic cricket is arguably easier to fix, and of lower-risk to those orchestrating such operations.
The case represents a major challenge to the ECB, and to the players union the Professional Cricketers Association, to demonstrate that they can take appropriate measures to prevent future incidents.
Westfield made his debt for the county in 2005, aged just 17, but struggled to break through as a regular fixture in the first XI.
He made just seven first-class and eight List A appearances for the county, though he was a more regular limited-overs team member. His last game for the county was a second XI fixture in Sept 2010, and he was released "on cricketing grounds" at the end of that season.
He was originally charged with conspiracy to defraud but following objections from his legal team the charges were amended.
The decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to deploy charges from both the Corruption Act and the Gambling Act in the Westfield case set the template for the charges faced by Butt, Amir and Asif.
With two precedents now for successful prosecution they arguably give sport in the UK a strong deterrent against fixing. Convictions are still notoriously hard to achieve - proving the intention to under-perform is difficult - but the courts have demonstrated they have the tools to deal with it.
The fact that Westfield was under investigation by Essex police for "match irregularities" was first revealed by an exclusive report in the Sunday Telegraph in April 2010.
