Blayney Inquiry
Author:
Brian Walsh
[Excerpt] The Blayney Committee of Inquiry was established by the Council on foot of a report from the Investigation Committee of the Institute which examined the outcome of the McCracken Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments). In addition to Mr. Justice Blayney, the other members of the Committee were Mr. Brian Duncan, FIA, and Mr, Patrick Shortall, FCA.
The Blayney Inquiry, explained the letter, â??will operate under the Special Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute, and will have power to inquire into the professional or business conduct or competence of members or member firms of the Institute arising out of matters dealt with in the McCracken Tribunal. Members and member firms are bound, under the Instituteâ??s Bye-laws, to cooperate with the Inquiry.â??
The establishment of the Blayney Inquiry was welcomed by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment. In October 1997, a letter from the Department informed the Institute that its recognition under the Companies Act 1990 had been amended to the effect that it must grant unrestricted access to one or more representatives of the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment to attend and observe the proceedings of all Committees of Inquiry established under the Special Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute. The amendment would also apply to all of the other recognised bodies.
While this amounted to a major change in the recognition of the accountancy bodies, the Institute recognised that it was not inconsistent with the openness now demanded in matters of public concern. It also recognised that it would be important to the future status of the Institute that its regulatory procedures would be seen to be efficient and effective.
Interim Statement
In April 1999 the Institute published an Interim Statement of the Committee of Inquiry. The Interim Statement revealed that following investigations and hearings, parties had been informed that a prima facia case had been established by the Committee. It outlined the process undertaken and the reasons the committee had not yet concluded its work, including the legal challenges to it, one of which held up the work of the Committee by eight months. The Committee had then (in April 1999) decided to consider relevant evidence which had, or would, emerge from the Moriarty Tribunal before concluding its work. In October 1999 the Committee resumed its work.
The Blayney Committee completed its report in May 2000. Under the ICAI Bye-laws, if any Committee of Inquiry reaches a finding adverse to any member or member firm, notice of appeal may be given to the Council of the Institute. A number of findings contained in the Report were appealed. An urgent meeting of the Council of the Institute was called, and an Appeal Committee, chaired by Mr. Hugh Kennedy QC, and also comprising Mr. John Hennessy, BL, FCA, and Mr. Maurice Tempany, FCA, was established in June 2000.
Under Institute regulations, the Report could not be published until such time as the appeal was determined or abandoned. The Institute has, at all times, indicated its intention to make the findings of the Report public at the earliest possible time.
In June 2000, the Institute expressed its disappointment at the delay in bringing the work to a conclusion but said that it would not deflect the Institute from reaching a conclusion to the process or imposing sanctions for any breaches of the Instituteâ??s regulations and code of conduct found to have occurred.
In April 2002, the Institute wrote to members informing them of a legal challenge to the Institute and the Blayney Appeal Committee. That letter informed them that on Thursday 28th March, 2002 the Institute had been informed by solicitors acting for Mr. Paul Carty and Deloitte & Touche that, following an ex parte application to the High Court, they would be seeking leave to institute a judicial review of certain decisions and procedures of the Blayney Appeal Committee; that they had obtained an order restraining the Blayney Appeal Committee and the Institute from proceeding with Mr. Cartyâ??s appeal until after the 30th April; and that they would seek a similar order in respect of Deloitte & Touche unless the Appeal Committee agreed not to proceed with a planned hearing of that firmâ??s appeal on the 9th April, 2002.
The letter to members stated the Instituteâ??s belief that it had complied fully with all proper procedures and would defend its position vigourously.
A special meeting of Council was called to discuss the implications of the judicial review proceedings initiated by Mr. Paul Carty, former Managing Partner with Deloitte & Touche.
The Council received an update on the legal position and confirmed that the Instituteâ??s disciplinary processes would be defended vigorously in any judicial review. The Council expressed surprise at criticism by Mr. Carty and Deloitte & Touche of its decision to inform members in April of the legal challenge which was commenced in the Courts on 27th March and was therefore in the public domain. The Institute affirmed its right to continue to update members on major issues affecting their professional body.
In a statement issued on 12th April, the Institute said it fully respected the provisions of its Bye-Laws which prohibit publication of any findings of a Committee of Inquiry which are the subject of an appeal until the appeals thereto are abandoned or determined.
At a hearing in the High Court in May 2002, the application by Mr. Carty for an Order restraining the Appeal Committee from proceeding with his appeal, was not pursued, leaving the Appeal Committee in a position where it could conclude its work. However, the leave to institute a Judicial Review remains "live".
The Blayney Committee was asked to conduct inquiries regarding the professional or business conduct or efficiency or competence of four individuals and two firms. One of the individuals successfully argued that he was not a member of the Institute, and the Committee was satisfied that it was not empowered to reach any finding regarding his professional or business conduct in respect of any of the matters relating to him alluded to in the McCracken Report. The findings in respect of another one of the individuals were not appealed, and another one has taken Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court. The appeal process in respect of the fourth individual and one of the firms, has been completed. At the time of writing, we are awaiting a decision on costs and publication in respect of the second firm.
It is the Institute's wish to publish the findings of Blayney and the Appeal Committee together. However, if the Judicial Review proceedings go ahead, and we should know whether or not this will happen within the next six to eight weeks, then we will publish the unappealed findings and the completed work of the Appeal Committee at the earliest possible opportunity in accordance with the Bye-Laws.
Accountancy Ireland Vol 35 No 1 February 2003