Unaoil: test the disclosure summary against the underlying record

365 ALTERAM analysis

The overlooked evidence may concern how the case was built

In an oil-sector corruption prosecution, attention naturally turns to tenders, commissions and payments. Yet another evidential question can matter just as much: does the defence have an accurate account of communications that influenced the prosecution’s evidence? A short disclosure description can identify a document while leaving its significance unclear. The practical task is to test that description against the underlying record.

This is a focused review of the information available for a particular defence decision. It requires a defined question, lawful access and a traceable comparison. The Unaoil litigation illustrates why that work can matter, without justifying an assumption that every missing record conceals misconduct.

Public record

What the appeal actually decided

Ziad Akle was convicted in 2020 of two conspiracies to give corrupt payments in proceedings concerning Iraqi oil projects. On 10 December 2021, the Court of Appeal quashed his convictions as unsafe. It found that undisclosed material concerning the SFO’s dealings with David Tinsley materially handicapped the defence in challenging reliance on Basil Al Jarah’s guilty pleas. Tinsley did not represent Akle. The court declined to order a retrial. [1]

The decision concerned trial fairness and the defence opportunity to challenge evidence; it was not a finding that every underlying commercial allegation was false. Nor was this a successful sentence-reduction argument: the court said the sentence appeal fell away and that it would otherwise have dismissed it. [1]

Public record

Reconstruct the contact history before drawing conclusions

Sir David Calvert-Smith’s independent review, published on 21 July 2022, found that records of contact generally existed but were not organised to facilitate effective disclosure review. Following appellate directions, enquiries included phone billing, visitor logs and IT service tickets. The resulting chronology exposed the extent of contact and gaps in its documentation. The review also described refused defence requests concerning a handset and lost messages. [2]

The May 2023 official update reported significant action on all eleven recommendations, while acknowledging that embedding changes and assessing effectiveness required further work. Historical failures therefore should not be presented as a finding about every subsequent SFO investigation. [3]

365 ALTERAM analysis

Build a comparison that counsel can use

For an authorised instruction, we would begin with a disclosure comparison table. Each entry should link the schedule description, document identifier, available original, attachments, date received and relevant disputed proposition. Preserve earlier schedule versions so that additions and corrections remain visible. Record whether an apparent omission is an absent document, an incomplete description or an unresolved request.

Next, construct a contact chronology using independently sourced records where available. Keep a meeting invitation separate from proof that a meeting occurred. A call record establishes a connection between numbers, not the words spoken. An email reporting a conversation is a participant’s account, not automatically a transcript. These distinctions prevent the reconstruction itself from overstating its certainty.

Where a message thread appears incomplete, ask a qualified digital examiner to assess the available acquisition, retention history and recoverability. Preserve originals and document every transformation used to create searchable copies. A failed recovery cannot establish what missing messages said. Equally, a summary that omits a material qualification should be flagged even where the original remains intact.

365 ALTERAM analysis

Explain the consequence of each discrepancy

The useful output is not a list of suspicious gaps. For each discrepancy, state which defence question it could affect, which source supports that assessment and what further material could resolve it. For example, the timing of a communication may matter to whether a later account was independently formed. That possibility needs testing against contemporaneous documents and alternative explanations.

Reviewers must also record adverse results. A complete thread may confirm the summary; a timing difference may reflect time-zone conversion; a missing attachment may be available under another identifier. Corrections that strengthen the prosecution record belong in the report alongside those that assist the defence.

365 ALTERAM can support counsel with source-indexed chronologies, disclosure comparisons and coordinated specialist examination. Qualified counsel determines the legal requests, admissibility arguments and remedies. Independent investigation cannot guarantee a quashed conviction or a shorter sentence. Its contribution is to make the evidential basis of those decisions more complete, reproducible and open to challenge.