header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Misguided guidance?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. 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
CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll