header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
01 September 2016 / Jonathan Pickworth
Issue: 7712 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Misguided guidance?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
Taylor Rose—Jessica Draganescu & Emily Hewlett

Taylor Rose—Jessica Draganescu & Emily Hewlett

Firm strengthens growth strategy and group litigation capability with senior hires

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Is inequality undermining trust?
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
NLJ this week: Freemasons ruling backs police transparency over privacy claims
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
NLJ this week: Right to grieve marks ‘major shift’ in employment law
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
NLJ this week: AI privilege battles expose risks
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
NLJ this week: Experts warned—AI use must be transparent
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll