the first of the grounds of relief, but I believe that the following quotations [1992] 1 All ER 730, 736-737, 738, provide a fair illustration: "Faced with the myriad opportunities for the concealment of fraudulent activities which companies and trusts provide, Parliament has given the Serious Fraud Office the power to call upon a suspected person to come into the open, and to disclose information which may incriminate him. The only question in the present case is how far Parliament has gone down that road. How far does the Act of 1987 remove the protection afforded by the Act of 1984 and the Codes of Practice issued pursuant to it? There is nothing in the Act of 1987 which expressly removes any part of that protection. Mr Collins points out in this connection that Code C was approved by both Houses of Parliament with full knowledge of the Act of 1987. Yet he accepts, as we think he must, that if a section 2(2) notice had been served upon the applicant before he was charged it would have overridden the caution which was presumably administered to him upon his arrest. This follows by necessary implication from the plain words of section 2. The question remains whether the caution which was undoubtedly administered to him when he was charged can similarly be overridden by the subsequent section 2(2) notice. It goes without saying that once a person is charged his status is changed. He becomes the subject of criminal proceedings. Subject