R v Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, ex parte X
| Date | 01 February 1997 |
| Pages | 173-177 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024925 |
| Published date | 01 February 1997 |
| Author | J Sedley,Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Regulatory investigations and the right to
silence
R v Institute of Chartered Accountants of
England and Wales, ex parte X
(High Court: Queens Bench Division) Sedley J
Date of Judgment: 25th October, 1996
Reported at: Times Law Reports, 7th November, 1996
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Volume 5 Number 2
FACTS
The Applicant in this case, referred to here
as X, was a Chartered Accountant and
Fellow of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants, a body constituted under
Royal Charter.
Part II of the Companies Act 1989,
which came into force on 1st October,
1991 requires company auditors to be qua-
lified and supervised by a supervisory
body and the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) has recognised the Institute
of Chartered Accountants (the Institute) as
the appropriate supervisory body. The
objects of the Institute are stated in its
Charter to be the maintenance of high
standards of practice and professional con-
duct by all its members. In order to fulfil
those objectives it has the power to make
arrangements for the investigation of com-
plaints against its members and their disci-
pline. The Charter further empowers the
Institute's Council to make bye-laws and
regulations to effect the Charter's objec-
tives and bye-law 49 provides that any
committee constituted by the bye-laws can
further delegate any of its powers to such
person or persons as it thinks fit. Bye-law
57 and Schedule 2 provide the disciplinary
framework for members of the Institute
and constitute an investigation committee
which, when seized of a 'complaint'
against a member, has power to demand
information from a member who, in turn
has a duty to provide it. Regulations also
empower the secretary of the investiga-
tions committee to exercise this power to
call for information under certain circum-
stances.
The applicant had applied to the Institute
to be registered as a company auditor and,
although there was some dispute about
whether or not the Institute had actually
received an application from him in his
own name (as opposed to registration as a
company, which was not permitted), for
the purposes of this hearing, it was
accepted by the court that he was unregis-
tered as an auditor. Therefore, after 1st
October, 1991 he should not have been
conducting any company audits. Indeed to
have done so would have been a criminal
offence under s.28 Companies Act 1989.
The Institute's investigations committee
had been investigating the Applicant in
connection with an anonymous complaint
received about his conduct of an audit in
1988.
This was before the registration
requirements of the 1989 Companies Act
came into force, so there was nothing
untoward about the fact that he had car-
ried out company audits then. However,
Journal of Financial Regulation
and Compliance, Vol. 5, No. 2,
1997,
pp. 173-177
© Henry Stewart Publications,
1358-1988
Page 173
To continue reading
Request your trial