The SFO investigation into allegations of fraud in connection with G4S’s contract to provide electronic monitoring services began in 2013. The SFO entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with G4S Care and Justice Services (UK), a wholly owned subsidiary of G4S, in July 2020, under which G4S accepted responsibility for three fraud offences against the Ministry of Justice and agreed to pay £38.5m plus costs of £5.9m.
In September 2020, the SFO charged the three senior executives with seven counts of fraud. The case was adjourned in January due to disclosure issues.
However, all three were acquitted at the Old Bailey this week after the SFO failed to offer evidence against the three and halted the case because ‘it was no longer in the public interest’ to pursue the charges.
A statement from Hickman & Rose, representing one of the former G4S executives, said the decision ‘represents another case whereby the prosecution of senior individuals following a corporate’s DPA has failed’.
Iskander Fernandez, head of white-collar crime and investigations at Kennedys, said: ‘Historically, the SFO hasn’t covered itself in glory when it comes to prosecuting individuals.
‘But to offer no evidence, particularly after an adjournment, smacks of a total inability to pull together a robust legal case for trial. How long does it actually need to prepare for trial? Although, the bigger question is perhaps, is the SFO is fit for purpose?
‘This case can now be added to the SFO’s catalogue of failings which includes its failure to successfully prosecute two Tesco executives in 2018 with the judge calling its case so weak that it could not be put to the jury. It was a similar tale with three Sarclad executives in 2019 and two former Serco executives in 2021.
‘This cannot be the swansong that outgoing director Lisa Osofsky, whose tenure comes to an end this year, must have been hoping for. It looks unavoidable that among the new director’s to do list will be a root and branch review of the SFO’s trial preparation approach.’
