R v Crown Court at Southwark, ex parte Bowles
| Pages | 162-164 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025877 |
| Date | 01 April 1998 |
| Published date | 01 April 1998 |
| Author | Rinita L. Sarker |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 6 No. 2 — Criminal Procedure
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
R ν Crown Court at
Southwark,
ex parte Bowles
Rinita L. Sarker
The benefits of accountants seeking prompt inde-
pendent legal advice to protect both themselves
and their clients during criminal investigations has
been reinforced by the recent House of Lords case
of R ν
Crown Court
at
Southwark,
ex
parte
Bowles.1
The case was possibly every accountants', not to
mention their insurers', worst nightmare. The
accountant in question was forced by a court order
to produce confidential documents relating to her
clients to the police, who were investigating the
clients for various offences of dishonesty. The dis-
honesty also extended to deceiving the accountant
with bogus information regarding the company
accounts.
In such situations, accountants are torn by con-
flicting duties — the duty of confidentiality
towards their clients with the threat of costly litiga-
tion for breaches of confidentiality juxtaposed with
the equally important public duty to report fraud
to the appropriate authorities and assist the police
in the proper prosecution of such cases.
The central issue in R v Crown Court at South-
wark, ex
parte
Bowles,
revolved around whether the
police had correctly applied for and been granted a
production order under s. 93H of the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988) which was geared
towards the recovery of the proceeds of criminal
conduct; or whether, as the accountant contended,
a production order under s. 9 of the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) should have
been applied for.
CASE HISTORY
Mrs Karen Bowles was the accountant whose cli-
ents,
Mr and Mrs Peaty, ran Associate Business
Management Ltd (ABM). ABM purported to be a
management consultancy business targeted at
recruiting redundant executives.
In return for paying a joining fee, such execu-
tives received an assurance from ABM of an
income from existing clients of the company.
Unfortunately, none of the executives ever
received an income but ABM did receive over
Page 162
To continue reading
Request your trial