header-logo header-logo

02 July 2021
Issue: 7939 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Deferred prosecution―did the high expectations play out?

52136
DPAs were introduced with high expectations by the Serious Fraud Office, but are they a blessing or a curse?

Five years on, and with a body of casework now built up, it’s time to assess the credibility of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs).

Writing in NLJ this week Ross Dixon, partner, Hickman & Rose, notes the expected flood of DPAs has not materialised. There have been nine so far.

Dixon looks into the reasons for the lack of popularity of these innovative arrangements and why, despite the low uptake, he believes DPAs are here to stay.

Issue: 7939 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll