to section 458 Companies Act 1985." The police officer then proceeded to caution the applicant again, as was his duty under paragraph 16.5 of the Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers ("Code C") published by the Secretary of State pursuant to powers conferred by section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We may assume that the caution was in the following terms: "You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but what you say may be given in evidence." We may also assume that thereafter the police officers abstained, as was their duty under Code C, from conducting any further interviews with the applicant in relation to the offence with which he had been charged, save perhaps in the very limited respects permitted by Code C, to which I shall later refer. On 7 May the applicant was admitted to bail, and so far as we are aware has been at liberty ever since, although it appears that he has appeared on a number of occasions at the Guildhall Magistrates' Court, to what effect we do not know. Meanwhile, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office had become aware of suspicion attaching to the affairs of the company, and at an early stage formed the opinion that the matter was appropriate for investigation by procedures created by the Criminal Justice Act 1987. In due course on 5 June an assistant director of the Serious