Abstract
The rule of law, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the privilege against self-incrimination are fundamental pillars of our criminal justice system. All of these principles are unjustifiably infringed by the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 (SFOA).
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has been afforded extraordinary powers of compulsion which are subject to insufficient oversight and constraint. The SFOA arms the SFO with the power to command suspects or persons of interest to attend a meeting with the Office’s Director, in which they must supply information or documents demanded by the Director and answer the Director’s questions. The Act not only strips the privilege against self-incrimination from suspects and the innocent alike, but allows these powers to be used following the suspect’s arrest and charge. Such powers may even be used where it is discovered no serious fraud was perpetrated.
The Act is therefore in need of reform. Most immediately, the Director’s powers ought to be curtailed once a suspect’s trial has commenced, as well as where it is clear no serious fraud is at issue. Further, the Director must be reined in, either through tighter definition of serious fraud or the imposition of greater oversight. As reasonable minds will differ as to the degree to which the infringement of the privilege is acceptable, a spectrum of options will also be detailed which would better protect the privilege and the principles it serves.