Hickman & Rose client Ariel Armon has been quoted in the financial media following the Serious Fraud Office’s decision to drop its near ten-year-long investigation into allegations of bribery involving London Mining Plc.

Mr Armon told the FT, Reuters, City AM and others that his prosecution was “a subversion of one of the most important principles of the English legal system […] for the past ten years the SFO has treated me as guilty until proven otherwise.“

He went on: “The past decade has been a living nightmare which has caused me irreparable financial, professional, and psychological harm. My ten-year ordeal, which resulted in an acquittal without even having to put forward a defence, represents millions of pounds of wasted taxpayer money.”

Ariel Armon was represented by Hickman & Rose partner Christopher Houssemayne du Boulay, who played a key role uncovering the major disclosure failures that were one of the reasons the SFO dropped its case.

As well as representing Mr Armon, Christopher was part of the Hickman & Rose team which defended client Richard Morris in the SFO’s G4S prosecution. That case was also dropped in part because of disclosure failings related to the agency’s use of its Autonomy e-disclosure system.

Mr Houssemayne du Boulay said: “The collapse of the G4S proceedings, three years ago, which triggered a review of all historic SFO convictions in cases which had used the Autonomy software, ought to have been a wakeup call for the SFO.

“It is astounding that the SFO’s e-discovery unit still lacks proper accreditation which is now mandatory for compliance with the Forensic Science Regulator’s Code of Practice.

“Complex fraud cases are built upon the forensic integrity of documentary evidence. If the SFO can’t ensure that their datasets are complete and accurate, then cases will continue to collapse, or worse, miscarriages of justice will occur.”

Fuller reports of SFO’s decision to drop the London Mining case are available here, here, and here.

Ariel Armon and Christopher Houssemayne du Boulay’s full comments to the media are below.

---

Ariel Armon said:

“In a subversion of one of the most important principles of the English legal system, I feel that for the past ten years the SFO has treated me as guilty until proven otherwise.

The past decade has been a living nightmare which has caused me irreparable financial, professional, and psychological harm.

But my case is not only a personal injustice. It constitutes a profound collapse in the checks and balances meant to ensure a fair trial.
What began with unduly onerous bail conditions evolved into a display of investigative ineptitude that appears to have become the SFO’s hallmark.

I believe that the failure to secure critical evidence which could have assisted me, and the failure to properly handle the material that it did obtain, demonstrates a culture of negligence within the SFO.

My ten-year ordeal, which resulted in an acquittal without even having to put forward a defence, represents millions of pounds of wasted taxpayer money.

Whoever succeeds Nick Ephgrave as director of the SFO needs to properly account this, and for the years of life this organisation stole from an innocent defendant.

I am immensely grateful to my entire legal team, and to those closest to me, for providing unwavering support through the darkest period of this ordeal. Special thanks go to Christopher Houssemayne du Boulay, whose dedication, honesty and care has been second to none.”

Christopher Houssemayne du Boulay said:

“I am very pleased that this eight-year ordeal for my client has finally come to an end, and that the right outcome has been reached.

It is deeply worrying that yet another major SFO prosecution has collapsed in part because of failings in the agency’s use of technology in respect of disclosure

The SFO’s inability to properly get to grips with failures in its Autonomy e-disclosure system was undoubtedly a key factor in its decision to drop this case.

The agency overlooked, for many years, hundreds of thousands of potentially relevant documents due to errors in processing which it had not addressed.

We may never know how this was allowed to happen. A side-effect of the SFO’s decision to drop the case means important questions about this and other failures will likely go unanswered.

These questions include: who knew about the issue? When did they first find out about it?  Why did they do nothing about it until now? And, most importantly: how many more issues are there which are yet to come to light?

The collapse of the G4S proceedings, three years ago, which triggered a review of all historic SFO convictions in cases which had used the Autonomy software, ought to have been a wakeup call for the SFO.

It is astounding that the SFO’s e-discovery unit still lacks proper accreditation which is now mandatory for compliance with the Forensic Science Regulator’s Code of Practice.

Complex fraud cases are built upon the forensic integrity of documentary evidence. If the SFO can’t ensure that their datasets are complete and accurate, then cases will continue to collapse, or worse, miscarriages of justice will occur.”