Has the SFO shifted its stance on waiving privilege? Jonathan Pickworth asks for clarity
Matthew Wagstaff’s comments on my recent article on deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are interesting, but he is splitting hairs ("DPAs: a blessing or a curse? Response from Matthew Wagstaff, Joint head of Bribery and Corruption Division, Serious Fraud Office).
On the one hand, Mr Wagstaff says that a waiver of privilege is not required, but he also reinforces the point made in my original article—and set out in the Deferred Prosecution Agreements Code of Practice—that it is expected that notes of witness interviews will be handed over. This would necessarily involve a waiver of privilege. At least that would be the view of most practitioners. It is also interesting to note comments made by senior individuals at the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) over the past couple of years on this very point (available to read in full at www.sfo.gov.uk).
- “What…co-operation looks like will differ from case to case, but it may well include proactive, self-reporting: speedy
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
