Accountants take the stand at Hillgrove trial

Kashflow logo
Share this content

The fifth days of PR guru Richard Hillgrove's trial resumed at Bristol Crown Court this week.

Day four and five were spent with the prosecution and defence questioning witness Michele Bishop, sole practitioner and owner of Wells-based firm Bishop Jones, which undertook accounting, bookkeeping and payroll work for Hillgrove in mid to late 2010 until January 2012.

Hillgrove, 42, of Somerton, Somerset, faces is accused of cheating the public Revenue of almost £100,000 over a 12 month period.

Please Login or Register to read the full article

The full article is available to registered members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register. Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

About Accounting WEB

AccountingWEB logo

Contributions from the editorial team.


03rd Jul 2014 11:39

CLARIFICATION regarding Bishop Jones Accountants

Whilst AccountingWEB has detailed above the claims made by Mr Hillgrove at court, it has been requested that in respect of fairness and accuracy, the following points be referred to in Court should be added to the report:

1.  Michele Bishop did provide in her evidence that Hillgrove and his wife were both partners of RJH Management LLP and not directors as stated in the article and that the tax liability referred to in court was that of the partners in their personal capacity and not the LLP. 

2.  Michele Bishop did provide in her evidence that Bishop Jones were not directly involved in the setting up of the “time to pay” arrangement.  She stated in court that this arrangement was worked out by Mr Hillgrove and his management accountant, with Bishop Jones only providing requested information.

3.  Michele Bishop stated in her evidence at court that she had added the liabilities to the trial balance at the specific request of Mr Hillgrove.

4.  Michele Bishop did not refer to PAYE in her evidence at court with regard to the intentional holding off of the submission of Hillgrove’s VAT Returns.  She referred only to VAT in this evidence, and not PAYE.

5.  With regard to running of two Sage systems, Michele Bishop provided in her evidence at court that, Bishop Jones did not have any involvement in the set-up of the two systems at Mr Hillgrove’s premises with regard to each of the two business entities. It was not made clear in the article that Michele Bishop had explained that Mr Hillgrove had created this arrangement of a separate computer with separate software for each entity.

Thanks (0)