Upton Accountants - more info

[Bugbait]

So he has been banned from operating as an accountant and has simply set up a second company?

I struggle to understand why the facts that we know to date cannot be posted here

We don’t know that he has been banned from operating as an accountant. The above only indicates that Darren Upton is no longer a Director of Upton & Co. The other company was registered in March and may or may not be related to other charges and would only be speculation without supporting evidence.

From my understanding and the “protection” afforded any accused by the law, we are not allowed to discuss the specifics of the case in a public forum. So far no specifics relating to the case have been discussed, merely the current status of Upton & Co in terms of service and staffing. Fine but important line.

Facts relating to the ongoing investigation, even with supporting evidence presented in an open forum such as this could unduly bias potential jurors against the defendant since none of this is sworn testimony and presented in a controlled environment like a court room. Sharing information with current and previous Upton clients in a private manner (ie. PM’s) is likely okay since no current or existing client would be permitted as a juror anyway. Anyone with legal know how should feel free to correct me if I’m speaking out of my rear on this.

[DeludedAussie]

We don’t know that he has been banned from operating as an accountant. The above only indicates that Darren Upton is no longer a Director of Upton & Co. The other company was registered in March and may or may not be related to other charges and would only be speculation without supporting evidence.

From my understanding and the “protection” afforded any accused by the law, we are not allowed to discuss the specifics of the case in a public forum. So far no specifics relating to the case have been discussed, merely the current status of Upton & Co in terms of service and staffing. Fine but important line.

Facts relating to the ongoing investigation, even with supporting evidence presented in an open forum such as this could unduly bias potential jurors against the defendant since none of this is sworn testimony and presented in a controlled environment like a court room. Sharing information with current and previous Upton clients in a private manner (ie. PM’s) is likely okay since no current or existing client would be permitted as a juror anyway. Anyone with legal know how should feel free to correct me if I’m speaking out of my rear on this.

So how exactly do newspapers report on current day to day issues

[Bugbait]

So how exactly do newspapers report on current day to day issues

The forums mod's are arguably being over-cautious I guess.

[administrator]

Hi All,

We are being cautious about what is said here for the exact reasons Bugbait has stated. We do not want to prejudice any trial and therefore we will not allow any posting regarding specifics about the case on here. We hope to have an update for you on here tomorrow but want to check with the investigating officers that they are happy with what we post. It is only right that you are able to discuss the happenings at Uptons on here. Myself and the mods are watching this thread and will remove any case specifics, so as long as this thread stays away from those areas then there is no problem with it staying open and visible to all.

Kind Regards

Admin

[ASB]

So how exactly do newspapers report on current day to day issues

Sometimes with difficulty. Arguably it is more difficult pre-trial during investigation than it is during trial. The national newspapers were recently done for contempt.

Sun and Daily Mail guilty of contempt over online photo in murder case | Media | guardian.co.uk

But the national newspapers have access to rather bigger and more expensive lawyers than ContractorUK - who would bear the burden of any legal issue as a result of ramblings. They may be being a bit over cautious but there is a big difference between discussing "down the pub" as an interested party and discussing it online.

Personally I think posting factual information would probably be OK, but inevitably it becomes opinionated and that can be a problem. Quite a number of cases fail to reach court because it is believed media attention would prejudice any fair trial.

"There is a world of difference between what is in the public interest and what is of interest to the public."

[SueEllen]

So he has been banned from operating as an accountant and has simply set up a second company?

I struggle to understand why the facts that we know to date cannot be posted here

If you were an old customer then you would know the accountancy body he was in.

You can then ring them up and ask.

But please do not post back on here otherwise you will prejudice a trial.

[Wanderer]

So how exactly do newspapers report on current day to day issues

Newspapers often print stores which sell a lot of papers but also gets them pursued in the civil or occasionally criminal courts. They make a risk assessment on each story and decide if they should run it or not. They have big budgets and are willing to pick a fight, it's their stock in trade and they will report the case and sell even more papers.

[SueEllen]

But the national newspapers have access to rather bigger and more expensive lawyers than ContractorUK - who would bear the burden of any legal issue as a result of ramblings.

Apart from certain people national newspapers don't want to p*ss people off too much as they need them for more articles, which sells the paper.

They may be being a bit over cautious but there is a big difference between discussing "down the pub" as an interested party and discussing it online.

Depends on what "pub" you are in.

Personally I think posting factual information would probably be OK, but inevitably it becomes opinionated and that can be a problem. Quite a number of cases fail to reach court because it is believed media attention would prejudice any fair trial.

Even factual information can mean you are held in contempt of court.

For example in a jury trial reasonable doubt comes into play, releasing information could prejudice a juror's opinion. This would cause a problem as they won't be basing their judgement on the facts presented to them.

A mate of mine was on a jury and the case had to be re-trialled at great cost to the tax payer, due to some dis-allowed evidence being shown to the jury.

In addition the libel laws in England cause lots of problems. The person, regardless of what they are accused off and whether they are found guilty or not, could go after you for libel. It's up to you to prove what you said was true not the other way round.

[ASB]

SueEllen,

You are quite right that factual information could be contemptuous depending upon what it is. That's why I used the word probably.

If it is false, even though written it is unlikely to be libel. Of course it is still potentially defamatory but would more likely be considered slander. It is more difficult to win a slander case than a libel course, actual attributable loss needs to be shown.

A link to some comment
Bulletin board postings more likely slander than libel, says High Court | Pinsent Masons LLP

[ratewhore]

Well, if it helps anyone make their mind up; I ditched Uptons a few months ago, after a number of years recommending them. The service was very good, then rapidly went downhill following Darren being turned over by the FSA for a few million. I should have seen the writing on the wall then. Anyway, service in the last 12 months went through the floor with no communication verging on complete ignorance. Just shy of the full 9 months to turn around the accounts.

Now I have changed accountants (a local one, not a contractor specialist off these boards) I am getting the new ones to go through the figures Uptons have provided for the last few years. I'm not convinced they are correct and time will tell if firstly, I'm right and secondly, if I have to take further action. If indeed they are around for me to do so...