Serious Fraud Office: Conceptual Basis and Rights Considerations under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987

Abstract

Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 abrogates the right to silence since a suspect is required to answer questions in pre‐trial investigations by the SFO, although the answers are inadmissible as evidence unless proceedings are brought under s. 2(14) for giving false information or by s. 2(8), where the individual ‘makes a statement inconsistent with it’. In a previous article, the writer has considered the necessity and effectiveness of s. 2 powers. It is also instructive to analyse the conceptual basis of s. 2 powers since this will aid in the interpretation of statutory ambiguities and will allow the courts to have a uniformity of approach when seeking to resolve the statutory ambiguities. The conceptual basis is also important as concerns the resolution of where the line lies between the effective investigation of offences pursuant to s. 2 and the rights of the individual subject to such questioning. A critical examination of the above issues demands steering a careful course between normative rules and theory: in this area above all others it is impossible and undesirable to divorce one from the other.

Citation

Savla, S. (1996), "Serious Fraud Office: Conceptual Basis and Rights Considerations under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025758