*/
A practical guide by defence and prosecution
Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), a relatively recent addition to the UK criminal justice toolkit, allow a company which has committed a criminal offence to avoid prosecution if it complies with a range of conditions, including a hefty financial penalty.
The specialist panel, moderated by Stuart Alford QC, offered a crash course in practical language that even tired brains could understand.
Sir Edward Garnier QC MP described DPAs as an idea born from austerity. Prosecuting complex crime is expensive and time-consuming, so he looked to the US’s experience in dealing with corporate wrongdoing. The provisions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 resemble the US model, but there is one principal difference: the UK model involves active judicial supervision of the agreement. This element was essential for the legislation to obtain political, judicial and public support.
Ben Morgan gave an insight into what the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is looking for when considering a DPA. In short, a company should approach the SFO early, investigate wrongdoing fully and openly and be as forthcoming as possible about the facts. Winning does not mean defeating your opponent; it means securing court approval for a DPA. Ultimately, the court can only approve a DPA if it is in the interests of justice and the terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate. This balance can be very difficult to achieve. On the one hand, there must be a punishment for wrongdoing. On the other hand, it is in the interest of employees, pensioners and suppliers for the company to remain a going concern, and there must be some incentive for the company to self-report.
Alison Levitt QC argued that the need for early self-reporting poses a challenge for companies. Once a company has self-reported, there is no going back. In practice, companies are likely to begin with their own investigation, followed by a risk assessment of whether the wrongdoing will ever be discovered. They will also be mindful of the risk of prosecution in other countries; although the SFO can work with its counterparts in other countries to avoid duplicate proceedings, there are no binding treaties so there remains a risk of international prosecution. Her advice was to investigate potential wrongdoing early and comprehensively, using external lawyers. As soon as there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal acts, the company cannot procrastinate. If a DPA is sought, companies must prepare to negotiate a sufficient discount on the financial penalty to make the risk worth taking.
The session left me with a good basic knowledge of DPAs and an idea of where to look if I need to know more. What more could I ask in an hour?
Contributor Aoife Drudy
Aoife is an employed barrister with the Government Legal Department and a member of the Counsel Editorial Board
Government Legal Service and a member of the Counsel editorial board
The specialist panel, moderated by Stuart Alford QC, offered a crash course in practical language that even tired brains could understand.
Sir Edward Garnier QC MP described DPAs as an idea born from austerity. Prosecuting complex crime is expensive and time-consuming, so he looked to the US’s experience in dealing with corporate wrongdoing. The provisions in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 resemble the US model, but there is one principal difference: the UK model involves active judicial supervision of the agreement. This element was essential for the legislation to obtain political, judicial and public support.
Ben Morgan gave an insight into what the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is looking for when considering a DPA. In short, a company should approach the SFO early, investigate wrongdoing fully and openly and be as forthcoming as possible about the facts. Winning does not mean defeating your opponent; it means securing court approval for a DPA. Ultimately, the court can only approve a DPA if it is in the interests of justice and the terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate. This balance can be very difficult to achieve. On the one hand, there must be a punishment for wrongdoing. On the other hand, it is in the interest of employees, pensioners and suppliers for the company to remain a going concern, and there must be some incentive for the company to self-report.
Alison Levitt QC argued that the need for early self-reporting poses a challenge for companies. Once a company has self-reported, there is no going back. In practice, companies are likely to begin with their own investigation, followed by a risk assessment of whether the wrongdoing will ever be discovered. They will also be mindful of the risk of prosecution in other countries; although the SFO can work with its counterparts in other countries to avoid duplicate proceedings, there are no binding treaties so there remains a risk of international prosecution. Her advice was to investigate potential wrongdoing early and comprehensively, using external lawyers. As soon as there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal acts, the company cannot procrastinate. If a DPA is sought, companies must prepare to negotiate a sufficient discount on the financial penalty to make the risk worth taking.
The session left me with a good basic knowledge of DPAs and an idea of where to look if I need to know more. What more could I ask in an hour?
Contributor Aoife Drudy
A practical guide by defence and prosecution
Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), a relatively recent addition to the UK criminal justice toolkit, allow a company which has committed a criminal offence to avoid prosecution if it complies with a range of conditions, including a hefty financial penalty.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
Kindness Ambassadors – coming to a courtroom near you! Valerie Charbit, Nicola Shannon KC and Professor Robin Banerjee update readers on the second phase of the project examining, and promoting, the impact of kindness and how it can fit into an adversarial system
