Crime analysis: Does the Serious Crime Act 2015 (SCA 2015) go far enough in the provisions relating to the protection of children? Andrew Lord, solicitor at Leigh Day, considers the new offences and the challenges of enforcement.

Corporate Crime analysis: Nick Murphy of 25 Bedford Row considers what the report is about, its key findings, the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate’s recommendations, the likelihood of these recommendations being implemented and what impact these could have on the disclosure process within the Serious Fraud Office.

Corporate Crime analysis: Lucy Blake and André Nwadikwa-Jonathan of Jenner & Block LLP consider the key takeaway points from the strategy, what the Serious Fraud Office intends to do and focus on, whether we are likely to see any changes to the way it carries out enforcement and whether there will be any other significant changes.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has announced the publication of the Brian Altman QC review into the R v Woods and Marshall trial and Sir David Calvert-Smith’s review into the SFO’s handling of the Unaoil investigation.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has expanded its existing Ultra Electronics Holdings Limited (formerly plc) (Ultra) criminal investigation. On 19 April  2018 SFO launched a criminal investigation into Ultra, its subsidiaries, employees, and associates regarding suspected corruption in Algeria. This investigation was initiated after Ultra self-reported its concerns. The existing criminal investigation has since been expanded by the SFO to cover any suspected bribery, corruption, or related offenses, including money laundering, committed by Ultra and its affiliates in any country, as long as the alleged offenses are triable in the UK jurisdiction.

The Serious Injury Guide Steering Committee’s annual survey will close on 4 March 2024. The survey assesses how the Serious Injury Guide is being used.

Discussion Agenda Inter Partes Case Management Conference Serious Injury Guide Conference dated [insert date] Claimant name: Defendant name: Attending: — [Insert name] (For Claimant) — [Insert name] (For Defendant) Agenda (initial meeting) 1 Discussion: known facts available at date of discussion Claimant 1.1 Details of known injury to date 1.2 Outline of Claimant’s current medical status 1.3 Claimant treatment needs: discharge plans, likely future operative or therapy/treatment needs 1.4 Claimant financial needs: where employed, sick pay scheme 1.5 Family needs: what has the Claimant and family expressed as immediate or long term concerns? 1.6 Effect on family, any needs for support (childcare, relative, dependents) 1.7 Any other information Defendant 1.8 Indemnity issues (if any) 1.9 Policy cover restrictions if any known 1.10 Status of insurer’s own accident investigation 1.11 Status of police/HSE investigation 1.12 Insurance indemnity status: policy limitations if relevant, whether co-operation from insured anticipated 1.13 Timescale for ability to provide formal comment/admissions 1.14 Whether on a without prejudice basis those admissions are likely How can both parties’ approach on this issue encourage an environment of co-operation and pro-activity? 2 Discussion: liability issues likely based on current information 2.1 What will the likely liability issues

Serious crime prevention orders (SCPOs) were created by Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA 2007) and are civil orders used against those involved in serious crime. An SCPO is used to protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting a person's involvement in serious crime through the imposition of conditions on a person's activities such as who they can associate with, where they can travel to, or placing an obligation to report their financial affairs to the police. SCPOs can be made where a person has committed (or assisted in the commission of) a serious offence in England and Wales. A serious offence is defined in SCA 2007, s 2(2) as: • an offence specified or falling within the description set out in SCA 2007, Sch 1, Pt 1, or • an offence the court considers, in the circumstances, to be sufficiently serious to be treated as such for the purposes of the application The offences for which an SCPO can be made are listed in SCA 2007, Sch 1 and

This Practice Note contains practical guidance on the concept of ‘serious harm’ in defamation claims. Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013), establishing that publication of a statement has caused serious harm to a claimant is a pre-requisite to bringing a successful claim for defamation. Claims that are unable to satisfy this threshold test will not succeed and the burden of proof is on the claimant to demonstrate the serious harm. This Practice Note explains both the concept of serious harm and how this has been applied by the courts, including consideration of some of the leading authorities in this area and practical tips when looking at serious harm in a defamation case. Why is the concept of ‘serious harm’ important? Defamation is a tort which, in broad terms, is designed to protect a claimant’s reputation. It relates to statements which ‘would tend to lower the estimation of right thinking members of society generally’. It has its origins in ecclesiastical and criminal law, where the starting point was that certain allegations were

Since A-day, this is payable after the scheme administrator has obtained medical evidence that a member's life expectation is less than a year, and only when all or part of that member's lifetime allowance is available. It will only be paid in relation to those benefits that have not been taken. It must be paid before the member reaches age 75.

If a member is expected to live for less than one year (defined as ‘serious ill-health’) then, provided certain conditions are met, the scheme administrator may commute any pension entitlement which that member holds under the scheme and pay them their entire benefit entitlement under an arrangement as a lump sum. This type of authorised member payment is referred to in the legislation as a serious ill-health lump sum. Conditions for payment of a serious ill-health lump sum Current conditions Under the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004), Sch 29, para 4, a scheme administrator may pay a serious ill-health lump sum to a member if the following conditions are satisfied: • before it is paid, the scheme administrator has received evidence from a registered medical practitioner that the member is expected to live for less than one year. The term 'registered medical practitioner' refers to a person who is registered under the Medical Act 1983 or, where the member in serious ill-health is overseas, a person with equivalent overseas qualifications • since 16 September 2016, the payment must extinguish

Construction analysis: The court dismissed an application under section 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) for serious irregularity. The applicant claimed that the tribunal had failed to consider all of the issues before it as it had not addressed all of the applicant’s defences. The court found that, on the facts, the points complained of had not been issues before the tribunal, and most had been decided by the tribunal in any event.