DPAs May Not Be Receiving Sufficient Judicial Scrutiny

Law360 (April 1, 2021, 3:17 PM EDT) -- The cornerstone of the deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, regime in our jurisdiction is the centrality of the court.

At the start of both his preliminary and final judgments delivered in the first DPA in 2015, Justice Brian Leveson intended that his affirmation of this principle would become, as indeed it has, axiomatic. Almost every subsequent judgment endorsing a DPA has recited his words about the indispensable judicial role.

Opening her 32-page judgment concerning the Airbus SE DPA in 2020,[1] for example, Justice Victoria Sharp P, Justice Leveson's successor as head of the Queen's Bench Division, reproduced the relevant passages in...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Beta
Ask a question!