A company director has failed to keep his name out of a deferred prosecution agreement with the Serious Fraud Office.
The SFO entered into a DPA with construction company Bluu Solutions Limited in 2019. A second DPA was entered into with Tetris-Projects Limited related to another offence of failing to prevent bribery.
The DPAs were approved by the court, but two people and Bluu were not named as criminal proceedings were ongoing. One of Bluu’s directors, Robb Simms-Davies, was charged, with others, with bribery offences. He was acquitted in 2023.
The DPA between Bluu and the SFO was later handed down in a de-anonymised form, which included Simms-Davies’ name.
He sought to quash the order of the judge to publish the judgment in its de-anonymised form. Permission to challenge the decision was granted on the ground that the judge ‘was wrong to approach the issue as if the claimant were applying for reporting restrictions in respect of information disclosed in open court’.
In Robb Simm-Davies v Southwark Crown Court, Lord Justice Lewis, who sat with Mr Justice Bennathan, noted the individuals ‘had all been named in the criminal proceedings’. A report of the proceedings was published on the SFO website next to a report of the DPA, ‘making the connection between the individuals and the events described in the DPA obvious’.
Read more
The judge said the ruling ‘expressly makes it clear that it is not finding facts’ and does not involve 'a statement that the claimant is guilty of criminal offences'. A court considering the necessity of identifying individuals in a DPA ‘to enable the public to understand its reasons for concluding that it is right to make the declaration sought’, is ‘part of the administration of justice’.
Dismissing the judicial review claim, Lewis added: ‘The principle of open justice applies to that process (whether or not the individuals were parties to the negotiations or the agreement or to the proceedings in which a declaration is sought).’
An SFO spokesperson said: ‘We welcome the High Court’s clarity on naming individuals as part of published DPAs. We remain committed to the proper application of legal principles in all our work.’
