10 SAUNDERS v. UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT exposition, which left the main issue of dishonesty to the jury. It commented that the applicant’s counsel had expressed the possibility that he might wish to address the court as to the admissibility of the transcripts. It stated however that the question had been decided, as far as it was concerned, by the decision given by another division of the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Seelig, which had held that such statements were admissible. It went on to reject the applicant’s appeal on all but one count: it found that the judge had erred in his direction on one count and quashed that conviction. It reduced his sentence to two and a half years’ imprisonment. D. Subsequent reference to the Court of Appeal by the Home Secretary 39. On 22 December 1994 the Home Secretary referred the applicant’s case and that of his co-defendants to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 17 (1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. He did so on the basis of applications by the applicant’s co-defendants - but not the applicant himself - who submitted that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain documents at their trial. 40. At the appeal the applicant argued, inter alia, that the use at the trial of answers given to the DTI inspectors automatically rendered the criminal proceedings unfair. The court rejected this argument, pointing out that Parliament had expressly and unambiguously provided in the 1985 Act that answers given to DTI inspectors may be admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings even though such admittance might override the privilege against self-incrimination. In its judgment the court noted that the interviews with each of the accused "formed a significant part of the prosecution case". 41. With reference to the allegation that it was unfair that those interviewed by DTI inspectors should be treated less favourably than those interviewed by the police under PACE, the court noted as follows: "... the unravelling of complex and devious transactions in those fields is particularly difficult and those who enjoy the immunities and privileges afforded by the Bankruptcy Laws and the Companies Acts must accept the need for a regime of stringent scrutiny especially where fraud is suspected ..." 42. In relation to the argument that the difference between the Companies Act and the Criminal Justice Act regimes (see paragraphs 48 and 54 below) was anomalous the court stated: "... the explanation lies in the very different regime of interviews by DTI inspectors compared with that of interviews either by police or the SFO [Serious Fraud Office]. DTI inspectors are investigators; unlike the police or SFO they are not prosecutors or potential prosecutors. Here, typically, the two inspectors were a Queen’s Counsel and a senior accountant. They are bound to act fairly, and to give anyone they propose to