UK: The Case Of AL- Disclosure Rights And Privilege In The Age Of DPAs

Last Updated: 27 June 2018
Article by David Rundle

On 19 April 2018 the High Court handed down its judgment in the case R (on the application of AL) v Serious Fraud Office. The Claimant (AL) is a current defendant in criminal proceedings brought by the SFO. AL sought to judicially review the SFO's failure to initiate breach proceedings in relation to its deferred prosecution agreement ("DPA") with the company XYZ. AL argued that the SFO should have instituted breach proceedings against XYZ for its failure to disclose potentially relevant material he had sought in support of his defence. XYZ had claimed that the material was privileged.

The High Court's judgment, whilst ultimately refusing AL's claim, represents another example of how courts will apply the test for litigation privilege to internal employee interviews, conducted in connection with perceived criminal or regulatory risk. The Court admonished the SFO for failing to properly scrutinise XYZ's privilege claim, in the discharge of its obligation to protect AL's fair trial rights. Whilst the Court's application of privilege law is consistent with recent judgments, it does illustrate how the prosecution of individuals, connected with DPAs, will raise novel legal issues. In response to the judgment, the SFO is likely to be far more robust in the face of privilege claims raised by cooperating companies. Conversely, cooperating companies should assume that litigation privilege is unlikely to apply, and think carefully before claiming it.

The Facts of the case

In 2012 XYZ initiated an internal investigation into whether its executives had paid bribes. As part of that investigation XYZ's lawyers interviewed AL (and three other employees). The purpose of the interviews was to enable XYZ to decide whether to make a self-report to the SFO, which it did shortly after the interviews had been completed.

XYZ and the SFO subsequently entered into a DPA, formally approved at a hearing on 8 July 2016. Under its terms, XYZ was required to continue cooperating with the SFO in all matters relating to the underlying conduct. Specifically, XYZ was required to "disclose all [such] information and material in its possession, custody or control, which is not protected by a valid claim of legal professional privilege or any other applicable legal protection against disclosure".1

In parallel with securing the DPA, the SFO continued its investigation in to certain individuals, including AL, and requested from XYZ the notes of their interviews. In response, XYZ asserted both legal advice and litigation privilege over the notes but agreed to provide an oral summary of the interviews during a "proffer session". In delivering these summaries, XYZ's lawyers declared that the oral proffer was not to be taken as a waiver of privilege. The proffers were taped and subsequently transcribed into written summaries of interview. XYZ made further self-reports to the SFO both before and after the proffer session.

Eventually AL was charged, and the proceedings were sent to the Crown Court. In performance of its disclosure obligations the SFO provided AL with the written summaries of interview. Unsurprisingly, AL sought the full records and notes of the interviews. In response to the SFO's requests, XYZ refused to provide the documents on grounds that they were privileged. The documents were the subject of a disclosure application in the Crown Court. The judge ruled that the SFO did not have an obligation to disclose the documents (pursuant to section 8 CPIA) because they were not in its possession, and hence could not be considered "prosecution material" as defined under the Act. However, the Judge expressed misgivings about the claim, made by XYZ and relied on by the SFO, ¬¬that the oral proffers amounted to an accurate summary of the full interview notes. He noted that XYZ's lawyers would have been neither in a position to, nor inclined to, assess the adequacy and accuracy of the summaries from the perspective of AL's defence.

Following the hearing the SFO made a further attempt to secure the interview notes, requesting XYZ to reconsider its privilege claim in light of recent case law (namely ENRC2  and The RBS Rights Issue Litigation3). XYZ however remained unmoved by the request. In maintaining its privilege claim over the documents, it observed that the lawyers' notes included specific instances of advice being given during the interview and recorded the lawyers' impressions, including associated comments and follow-up points. Thereafter the SFO refused to compel XYZ to produce the full interview notes. By judicial review, AL challenged the SFO for not formally compelling XYZ to produce the notes and not pursuing the company for a breach of the DPA on account of the non-disclosure.

The High Court's Judgment

The Court dismissed AL's application, ruling that the Crown Court proceedings left open adequate alternative remedies to resolve the issues raised by the judicial review. The Crown Court was tasked both to consider disclosure issues, under the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 ("CPIA"), and to ensure that the defendants had a fair trial. An adequate alternative remedy was available through section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, under which the Crown Court had the power to compel XYZ to produce the interview notes and, in doing so, could assess and resolve the privilege claim. Subject to a material error by the prosecutor which could not adequately be addressed by the Crown Court, the High Court held that it could not intervene in the circumstances.

Notwithstanding its ruling that alternative remedies were available, the Court went on to consider the other issues raised by the application.

The Court rejected the SFO's claim that it had a very broad margin of error, equivalent to its prosecutorial discretion, when considering whether to initiate DPA breach proceedings against XYZ. The exercise of the SFO's discretion had to be considered in the context of the disclosure dispute. Having commenced prosecution against AL, the SFO had a duty to ensure that the proceedings were fair. The Attorney General Guidelines on Disclosure prescribe that prosecutors must make reasonable steps to procure relevant materials from third parties. Furthermore, under the Guidelines the standard of reasonableness "assumes persistence and a willingness to deploy procedural force in the face of opposition."4  Accordingly, the Court found that the SFO had been wrong to claim that its decision on whether to breach XYZ was afforded a broad margin of appreciation which could not be interfered with.

The Court rejected the plausibility of XYZ's assurance that the interview notes had no incremental value over and above the oral proffers and other materials it had provided. The proffer of AL's interview, which had lasted 15 hours, took up only five pages of text. Moreover, it acknowledged that a complete note would assist the trial court to understand the context of an interviewee's response. The Court was persuaded, on the facts, that the incremental information contained in the full interview notes would be relevant to AL's case.

The merits of XYZ's privilege claim and the SFO's reliance on it

Most significantly, the Court scrutinised the SFO's position in response to XYZ's privilege claim, and assessed the merits of that claim. Whilst these comments are obiter, they reinforce the position adopted in other recent judgments.

  1. The SFO argued that because XYZ's privilege claim was "not obviously invalid" its decision not to challenge the claim could not be the subject of a judicial review. The Court expressed skepticism over whether that formulation would be an appropriate response to a public law argument. Instead the Court suggested that, in discharging its public function, the SFO was obliged to conduct a proper, detailed analysis of the merits of the privilege claim. The Court noted that, "Regulatory decision making cannot proceed upon the basis of cursory tests of obviousness".
  2. Having observed that the relevant law relating to legal privilege was well settled (citing Three Rivers, RBS and ENRC), the Court expressed clear misgivings that, on the application of that law, that the notes of interview would be protected.

    1. Legal advice privilege would not ostensibly apply, as the individuals interviewed were providers of information as employees, not as clients (as per Three Rivers).
    2. Litigation privilege was unlikely to be engaged, because, the purpose of conducting the interviews had been to determine whether there was evidence of any breach of the law, and hence whether a self-report should be made. This purpose was too remote from the conduct of contemplated litigation.
    3. The presence of "lawyers' musings" in the notes were not capable of cloaking the whole note in legal privilege, because any genuinely privileged entries could be redacted in the usual manner.
  3. The oral proffers likely constituted a waiver of privilege in relation to the interview notes (the proffers being a summary of the interviews), and therefore "(prima facie) [opened] the door to disclosure of the underlying interview notes". The only competing argument the Court could envisage, was that the waiver had been for the exclusive use of the SFO. Given it was obvious that the defendants would potentially be prosecuted, and that any summary of the proffer would fall to be disclosed in such prosecution, a waiver for the SFO's exclusive use could not have been contemplated.

Lessons learned?

This decision reinforces the Courts' current application of legal privilege in the context of internal enquiries conducted in advance of criminal / regulatory investigations. The Court of Appeal will review the present approach when it hears the ENRC case in July. The most interesting question it will consider, is how "contemplated litigation" should be interpreted in the context of the circumstances where companies are trying to gather facts before deciding whether to cooperate with the SFO. If the Court's panel agrees with the High Court, it is difficult to envisage how any company, when considering to adopt a cooperative posture in the face of potential enforcement action, could realistically claim litigation privilege.

The decision in the present case also raises issues which are likely to be a common feature of criminal proceedings connected with a deferred prosecution agreement. In future, the SFO will need to scrutinise rigorously any privilege claim made by a DPA party, where the material could subsequently be the subject of a reasonable disclosure request. Reliance on an ostensible or potentially valid claim to privilege may not be adequate when discharging its disclosure obligations. Instead it will need to test the merit of any claim and consider how an individual defendant's fair trial rights can best be secured. Furthermore, where there are reasonable reservations about the privilege claim, the SFO will need to be prepared to initiate breach proceedings.

It seems likely that the SFO will push back on oral proffers being suggested as an alternative to the underlying documentary evidence. Even where it is receptive to the idea, companies and their lawyers should assume that a proffer may amount to a waiver of privilege over the materials on which the proffer is based, especially where related future criminal proceedings are reasonably foreseen.

Finally, this judgment prompts a reassessment of what disclosures should be made to individuals when interviewed by a company's lawyers. The traditional approach is to tell the subject that the interview is privileged, and the privilege is the company's to waive. In a U.K. context, where the conditions for litigation privilege are unlikely to apply, is this misleading? An individual might reasonably assume that the company will not waive its privilege, or may have been told that the interview will be conducted by lawyers, in order to protect the information which is disclosed. These facts could contribute to the grounds on which the interview is sought to be excluded5 as evidence in a future criminal trial.

Footnotes

1. Para. 62, Preliminary Judgment of Sir Brian Leveson.

2. Serious Fraud Office v ENRC [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB).

3. [2016] EWHC 3161 (Ch).

4. Para. 86.

5. Under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Stephenson Harwood
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Stephenson Harwood
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions