Why did Court Inspector need 18 months?
25 January, 2010
Not surprisingly, media comment has focused on the somewhat surprising and Jesuitical findings of Bill Shipsey in his report on the Fyffes insider trading scandal. I can’t really add anything useful on the substantive issues, but I am puzzled that nobody has raised the question of why Mr Shipsey took 18 months to produce his report. Have we all become so used to the laughably slow pace exemplified by the Moriarty and other tribunals that we think that 18 months isn’t so bad?
This was an investigation with relatively narrow terms of reference. So allow say a month to meet and interview people, another 2 months (at most) to collate and review the results, a month to write up draft findings, a month to allow relevant people to see those draft findings, and another month to process their responses. Say 6 months at the outside. What was he doing for the other year?
Can anybody help me on this? Was the slow pace deliberate? Were interviewees uncooperative? Was Mr Shipsey slacking off? I would like to know.