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

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll