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 said.

The genesis of the new guidance comes from a

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
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll