header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 June 2018 / Oliver Cooke , Dan Hyde
Issue: 7799 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

DPAs: still dividing opinion?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7799_hyde

Deferred Prosecution Agreements—five years on, what have we learned? By Oliver Cooke & Dan Hyde

  • DPAs subject to rigorous scrutiny by the courts.
  • Balance meaningful punishment with fairness for innocent parties.
  • Can now be used for offences under the Financial Crime Act as well as the Bribery Act.

Since their introduction in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (CCA 2013), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has concluded four Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), seemingly all in different circumstances (the details of one remaining confidential). Opinion is divided: some commentators believe they provide an effective means of compelling businesses to behave ethically, lawfully and transparently; others (including the Executive Director of Transparency International UK) feel they represent ‘a soft option for companies that should be prosecuted for serious crimes,’ (Robert Barrington, executive director, Transparency International UK).

While it is still undeniably early days for DPAs, informative trends do begin to emerge from the DPAs concluded with Standard Bank, the company known as ‘XYZ’, and Rolls-Royce.

Fairness

Fairness is the overriding principle at

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Read All
APIL sees off ‘substantial prejudice’ defence
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll