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
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll