A briefing from Corker Bining on 1st November says that it is a well-established principle of criminal law that compelled testimony (such as that which may be obtained under its powers by the SFO) can only be admitted in evidence against the compelled person is extremely limited circumstances.  However, it asks, is it easier to admit compelled testimony against – or on behalf of – a co-defendant tried on the same indictment as the compelled person?  The article offers 2 scenarios and says, in conclusion, that the privilege against self-incrimination has never been regarded by the courts as absolute, and that the use immunity granted as a quid pro quo for the compulsion of the interview applies only to the subsequent use of such interview by a prosecutor, not a co-defendant.  Therefore, compelled testimony can, in carefully prescribed circumstances, return to damage the compelled person at trial.

This blog is primarily for my own use, to keep informed and up to date. However, if you would like to say thank you (and perhaps help me get a new, better laptop when I am away…) you can “buy me a coffee” at


Author: raytodd2017

Chartered Legal Executive and former senior manager with Isle of Man Customs and Excise, where I was (amongst other things) Sanctions Officer (for UN/EU sanctions), Export Licensing Officer and Manager of the Legal-Library & Collectorate Support Section

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: