All authorities agree that it is preferable for the defendant`s lawyers to support him in this difficult and delicate trial, and as has already been mentioned, the invitation to enter into such an agreement is often formulated first by the defendant`s lawyers, and many of the subsequent negotiations closely involve the defense lawyers. The purpose of the scoping interview is to assess whether the person is fit to enter into a SOCPA agreement and what type of agreement exists. Before this happens, a letter from Proffer must be agreed. This theoretically protects the individual from the use of his interview in future proceedings against him if the trial were to collapse. However, it doesn`t really offer as much protection, as it still allows investigators to use the answers given to read other lines of inquiry that might not be useful. Although none of the agreements is subject to the legal representation of an author, it is clearly preferable for him to do so in the interests of justice. Therefore, before being invited to discuss any form of agreement, the investigator informs him of his right to seek independent legal advice on the conditions and effects. The decision whether or not to request to waive THE LPP is made on a case-by-case basis. However, the refusal of a potential witness to waive LPP does not necessarily mean that they cannot be considered for a written agreement. Since 1 April 2006, there has been a legal framework for the granting of immunity. It was not provided for the law to prohibit the practice of legislation in which the police, with the agreement of the Public Prosecutor`s Office, confidentially informs the trial judge of the assistance of an accused to the public prosecutor`s office. Texts may continue to be provided under existing procedures. The 2005 Law on Serious Organized Crime and the Police, ss 71-73 (SOCPA 2005), provides that the Public Prosecutor`s Office may also attempt to refer the judgment back to the court in the event of a subsequent offence.
However, this is only possible if the accused is still serving a prison sentence. In Loughlin`s relatively recent case, the Supreme Court refused to prescribe the factors that must be considered by a particular prosecutor in deciding whether to refer a case. In this case, the cooperating witnesses lied and entered into secret agreements, thus breaking their agreement, but the prosecutor found that it was not in the public interest to avail themselves of s74. The declared prosecutor will then discuss the terms of the agreement with the debriefing agents and draft an agreement. This should be formulated as precisely as possible and the conditions under which the assistance is to be provided should include the extent of the assistance to be provided and the possible benefits for the offender. Once the draft has been approved by the prosecutor and the defence, it is made available through the debriefing unit for the agreement and signature of the offender. The lawyer representing the offender must also agree and sign an obligation regarding the processing of the document, while he is temporarily detained. Once the agreement has been signed by the offender, it must be immediately returned to the designated prosecutor for signature by the debriefing unit. The investigator will endeavour to obtain sufficient information to assist a particular prosecutor in deciding whether an agreement is appropriate; This is done either by the legal representative of the offender or by direct contact with the offender. Mr.
Hall was convicted of complicity in corruption abroad. He had reached an agreement s73 with the SFO, under which he testified to the indictment of his co-accused, Mr. Dahdaleh. . . .