UK Offence Report

Offence of disclosure in contravention of section 1224A

regulation 1224B(1) of The Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2007

The provision has been revoked and no saving provision preserving liability for earlier conduct was found.

What the provision says

1 A person who discloses information in contravention of section 1224A (restrictions on disclosure) is guilty of an offence, unless—

a he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the information had been provided as mentioned in section 1224A(1), or

b he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds
a person
Conduct
contravening a requirement of the instrument
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
Legal burden on the defendant

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

The provision gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

The defence, as drafted

had been provided as mentioned in section 1224A(1), or b he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.

What would breach regulation 1224B(1)?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

  1. On these words an offence is committed where a person discloses information in contravention of section 1224A (restrictions on disclosure).
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2007, whatever the reason for doing it.
  3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
3 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
1 year

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Revoked
Revoked by
The Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016
Made
17 December 2007
In force from
Not determined
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: the instrument was revoked by a later instrument found in this corpus.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

The Regulations implement in part Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (“the Audit Directive”). Regulations 4 to 16 amend provisions in Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 (statutory auditors). Regulation 4 requires supervisory bodies to extend certain of their rules to former members. Regulation 6 requires an aptitude test in connection with the recognition of the qualifications of third country auditors. Regulation 8 and the Schedule impose an obligation of confidentiality in relation to the regulatory bodies for the audit profession. Regulation 14 requires those bodies to cooperate with regulatory bodies in other EEA States, and regulation 15 imposes requirements in relation to working arrangements entered into by them for the transfer of papers to regulatory bodies outside of the EEA. Regulation 9 allows the Independent Supervisor of the Auditors General a choice as to whether to establish supervision arrangements itself, or to enter into supervision arrangements with other bodies. Regulation 16 extends the power of the Secretary of State to issue directions to comply with international obligation, so that they may be issued to the Independent Supervisor. Regulations 17 to 28 amend provisions in Schedule 10 to the Companies Act 2006, which have the effect of requiring recognised supervisory bodies to have certain rules with which their members must comply if they wish to act as statutory auditors. Regulation 17 requires an aptitude test in connection with the recognition of qualifications of EEA auditors. Regulations 19 and 21 introduce additional reporting and independence requirements, and regulation 20 requires certain technical standards in relation to group audits. Regulations 22 and 23 impose requirements as to the monitoring and enforcement of the bodies’ rules. Regulation 24 regulates the transfer by statutory auditors of papers to regulatory bodies outside of the EEA. Regulations 26 to 28 require some standards to be set, and some monitoring to be conducted, by a body independent of the recognised supervisory bodies. Regulations 29 to 40 set out procedural and substantive requirements for the registration of third country auditors and make some minor amendments to the Companies Act 2006. Regulation 34 requires the Professional Oversight Board to keep the register. The Financial Services Authority is to make rules stipulating that an audit report for the accounts of certain third country companies admitted to trading on a regulated market in the United Kingdom must be provided by either a third country auditor entered on this register or a statutory auditor. Regulation 30 extends the power in section 1239(7) of the Companies Act 2006 so that the Secretary of State may direct in writing that specified requirements of regulations concerning the register of third country auditors are not to apply to a particular registered third country auditor or a class of registered third country auditors. Regulation 42 amends section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. It allows a company member to petition a court if the company’s auditor has been dismissed on improper grounds. Regulation 45 revokes the Company Auditors (Examinations) Regulations 1990, the Companies Act 1989 (Register of Auditors and Information About Audit Firms) Regulations 1991, and the equivalent Northern Ireland regulations. It is intended that all will be replaced by regulations to be made by the Professional Oversight Board. Regulation 45 also revokes the European Communities (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) (First General System) Regulations 2005, the provisions of which are replaced by regulation 17, insofar as they relate to statutory auditors. An Impact Assessment in respect of these Regulations has been produced and copies are available from the Company Law and Governance Directorate, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET or on www.berr.gov.uk.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”
Confidence
0.92 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source