header-logo header-logo

G4S fraud trial collapses after SFO offers no evidence

10 March 2023
Categories: Legal News , Fraud , Criminal , Disclosure , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has come in for criticism over its decision to drop charges against three former G4S executives following a ten-year investigation.

The SFO investigation into allegations of fraud in connection with G4S’s contract to provide electronic monitoring services began in 2013. The SFO entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with G4S Care and Justice Services (UK), a wholly owned subsidiary of G4S, in July 2020, under which G4S accepted responsibility for three fraud offences against the Ministry of Justice and agreed to pay £38.5m plus costs of £5.9m.

In September 2020, the SFO charged the three senior executives with seven counts of fraud. The case was adjourned in January due to disclosure issues.

However, all three were acquitted at the Old Bailey this week after the SFO failed to offer evidence against the three and halted the case because ‘it was no longer in the public interest’ to pursue the charges.

A statement from Hickman & Rose, representing one of the former G4S executives, said the decision ‘represents another case whereby the prosecution of senior individuals following a corporate’s DPA has failed’.

Iskander Fernandez, head of white-collar crime and investigations at Kennedys, said: ‘Historically, the SFO hasn’t covered itself in glory when it comes to prosecuting individuals.

‘But to offer no evidence, particularly after an adjournment, smacks of a total inability to pull together a robust legal case for trial. How long does it actually need to prepare for trial? Although, the bigger question is perhaps, is the SFO is fit for purpose?

‘This case can now be added to the SFO’s catalogue of failings which includes its failure to successfully prosecute two Tesco executives in 2018 with the judge calling its case so weak that it could not be put to the jury. It was a similar tale with three Sarclad executives in 2019 and two former Serco executives in 2021.

‘This cannot be the swansong that outgoing director Lisa Osofsky, whose tenure comes to an end this year, must have been hoping for. It looks unavoidable that among the new director’s to do list will be a root and branch review of the SFO’s trial preparation approach.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll