The public interest test requires that the company`s consent to a CCA be in the public interest in all circumstances. The chapter contains a wide range of factors relevant to this test. In particular, it should be noted that a „failure to report fault within a reasonable period of time when hurtful conduct is revealed“ or „does not report fault but does not report it, if it is known or believed to be imprecise, misleading or incomplete“, are two factors that mitigate for the benefit of prosecutions, which should be considered in conjunction with the guidelines on self-reporting requirements. enlarged further. Conversely, whether a conviction for infringement would likely have disproportionate consequences for the company (e.g.B. whether the undertaking could be excluded from participation in public procurement or whether an operating licence could be threatened), the guidelines indicate that a CCA could be considered to be in the public interest. The effect of a CCA is to defer the prosecution of the offences in the indictment. The CCA should not provide a time limit to prevent the company from being prosecuted for conduct that is not listed in the indictment, even if the non-incriminated conduct was disclosed during the CCA negotiations.  The prosecutor must not only be satisfied with one of the two parts of the review of the evidence, but also be satisfied that entering into a CCA with the company would properly fulfill the public interest instead of being prosecuted.  This requires a balance between factors that tend to support prosecutions and those that do not. The factors deemed relevant and the weight given to each are within the competence of each prosecutor and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
 The prosecutor must consider the public interest factors set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors in determining whether, unlike a prosecution, a CCA is in the public interest.   Crime and Courts Act 2013, Schedule 17, subsection 5(1). See also DPA Code of Conduct, paragraph 6.3, which confirms that it is not necessary to admit guilt, but the content and importance of the key documents referred to in the statement of facts require authorization. A CCA normally expires on the date specified in the agreement.  If the proceedings are closed at the expiry of a DPA, the prosecutor must publish: (i) the fact that the proceedings have been closed; and (ii) how the company will comply with the CCA, unless there are reasons to delay publication.  The letter should specifically request confirmation from the company that it wishes to enter into negotiations in accordance with the law and the DPA code, as well as a response time. It is also good practice to set a timetable for the conclusion of the negotiations. Case teams should ensure that persons authorized to represent the company in the DPA negotiations are not involved in the issues under consideration, so that they can be considered suspicious. A deferred Prosecution Agreement („DPA“) is an approved judicial agreement between an unregreg registered company, partnership or group, referred to as „the company“ in this chapter, and an attorney before the CPS or SFO. A CCA may be an appropriate alternative to the continuation of the business if it is in the public interest. The SFO does not explain why fairness and the importance of not misleading the company about the strength of its case might require such disclosure if individuals are charged but do not ask if they are not. Given the importance of testimony when evaluating evidence by each prosecutor (as well as in any trial), companies would be well advised to request such disclosure so that they can form their own opinion on the strength of the indictment.
. . .