Finance chief of bankrupt Thurrock council barred from practising
Sean Clark, the former finance director of Thurrock council who oversaw a disastrous £1 billion investment strategy that pushed the council to the brink of bankruptcy, has been banned from the accountancy profession for five years.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) had been investigating Clark, 58, for the past 16 months. In addition to his five-year exclusion from the profession, the industry regulator has also given him a severe reprimand for his conduct, which it said 'fell significantly short of the standards' it expects from chartered accountants.
The FRC typically imposes financial penalties on any accountants found guilty of misconduct but it decided not to do so in this case, reflecting Clark's 'existing financial resources and future employment prospects'. He had been earning £140,000 a
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
30 minutes ago
- The Sun
Six members of Russian spy ring to have ‘too lenient' jail sentences reviewed
SIX members of a Russian spy ring are to have their jail sentences reviewed for being too lenient, we can reveal. The Bulgarians — who lived and worked in the UK — plotted sex stings, and targeted Russian dissidents and journalists critical of President Vladimir Putin 's war effort against Ukraine. 7 7 The ring included lab worker Katrin Ivanova, 33, and beauty shop owner Vanya Gaberova, 30 — dubbed 'killer sexy brunettes' by cell leaders. Ivanova got nine years and eight months and Gaberova eight years. They were both found guilty in March of breaching the Official Secrets Act by conspiring to provide information useful to an enemy between August 2020 and February 2023. Ivanova also got a concurrent sentence of 15 months for forged ID documents. All six got a total of more than 50 years last month. The Attorney General's Office has been asked to consider the sentences under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. The ULS scheme allows anyone to ask for a Crown Court sentence to be assessed by the Attorney General's office if they think it is too lenient. Law officers have 28 days from sentencing to make a decision. 7 7 7 7 7
BBC News
44 minutes ago
- BBC News
Sheku Bayoh: Hearing to decide whether chair should resign begins
A former judge who is chairing a £50m public inquiry into the death of a man in police custody will hear arguments on Thursday on whether he should step down or see the job Scottish Police Federation has accused Lord Bracadale of holding "secret" meetings with the family of Sheku Bayoh, who died after being restrained by police in Kirkcaldy in organisation which represents rank and file officers believes the five meetings could lead to "perceived bias" and has called for him to "recuse" Bracadale has been leading the inquiry since 2020 and ordered the hearing to allow core participants to make submissions on his conduct. If Lord Bracadale decides to stay in post, the federation has said it will seek a judicial departure and the search for a last minute replacement after five years of work would delay the inquiry's findings by many has already cost the public purse £24.8m, with an additional £24.3m spent by Police Scotland, including £17.3m of legal stage is now set for a robust exchange of legal arguments between senior lawyers. Roddy Dunlop KC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, will represent the police federation and two of the officers involved in the incident which ended with Mr Bayoh's police federation has said that none of the other core participants were made aware that Lord Bracadale was meeting the family and the details of what was said have not been federation's general secretary David Kennedy has said it has lost confidence in the inquiry because not all core participants were being treated Bayoh family's solicitor Aamer Anwar has described the federation's actions as "a pathetic and desperate attempt to sabotage the inquiry" at the 11th claimed the hearing could cost taxpayers "in excess of a million pounds" in fees for "police lawyers." Competing arguments One of England's top barristers, Jason Beer KC, has been brought in as senior counsel for the inquiry is expected to argue that Lord Bracadale's actions were procedurally appropriate because of the importance of maintaining the family's prosecution service, the Crown Office, will state its position, along with Police Scotland, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and the Commission for Racial Equality and representing other police officers involved in the case will also have the opportunity to have their hearing is scheduled to last two days, with Lord Bracadale issuing his decision at a later inquiry has been examining what happened before and during the death of Sheku Bayou, who died in police custody. It has been looking at how the police dealt with the aftermath, the investigation into Mr Bayoh's death and whether race was a of the public called the police after Mr Bayoh was spotted carrying a knife and behaving erratically in the streets of Kirkcaldy on May 3, wasn't carrying the knife when officers arrived at the scene but a violent confrontation followed, with up to six officers restraining the 31-year-old on the father-of-two lost consciousness and later died in hospital.
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
High Court hears company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE
A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were 'faulty' because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Both have denied wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. 'It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns.' Mr Stanley said in written submissions the 'initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone', with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were 'not part of this case', which was 'simply about compliance'. He said: 'The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody.' In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: 'Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. 'On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs.' In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the 'only plausible reason' for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to 'the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject', after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not 'representative of the whole population', meaning 'no proper conclusions may be drawn'. He said the DHSC's claim was 'contrived and opportunistic' and PPE Medpro had been 'made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors' by the department. He said: 'It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. 'In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money.' He also said there was a 'delicious irony' that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had 'zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and Baroness Mone did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
