header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Misguided guidance?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
01 September 2016 / Jonathan Pickworth
Issue: 7712 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud
printer mail-detail

The Serious Fraud Office risks alienating witnesses with new guidance, say Jonathan Pickworth & Joanna Dimmock

In June 2016 the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) published new guidance on the conduct of interviews under s 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. Interviews under s 2 are “compelled” interviews. A failure to attend, or to answer questions, without a reasonable excuse, constitutes a criminal offence.

Facts of the guidance

The guidance provides that anyone attending such an interview will not be entitled to legal representation as of right. The SFO may agree to permit a lawyer to attend in certain circumstances, but the guidance reserves a right for the SFO to refuse. The SFO will not even consider attendance by a lawyer unless and until certain undertakings have been given by that lawyer about a wide range of issues. It is also clear from the guidance that it will be a rare occasion when an additional lawyer, eg a more junior note taker, will also be allowed to attend to take a proper note of anything

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
Sponsored by
DWF—Ed Williams

DWF—Ed Williams

Public sector disputes capability bolstered by partner hire in Leeds

Blake Morgan—Scott Hilton, Joan Yu & Melia Hirst

Blake Morgan—Scott Hilton, Joan Yu & Melia Hirst

Firm strengthens corporate, real estate and insolvency teams with partner trio

Seddons GSC—David Seal & Emma Clifford

Seddons GSC—David Seal & Emma Clifford

Consultant and solicitor join commercial real estate team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: What judging really demands
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
NLJ this week: AI comes for the billable hour
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
NLJ this week: Civil procedure—sharp elbows & sharper warnings
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
NLJ this week: Getting the facts right in family courts
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
NLJ this week: Sporting justice—at sprint speed
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll