Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.
The extent to which our procedures are capable of detecting irregularities, including fraud is detailed below:
Irregularities, including fraud, are instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations. We design procedures in line with our responsibilities, outlined above, to detect material misstatements in respect of irregularities, including fraud.
We considered the nature of the company’s industry and its control environment and the company’s documentation of their policies and procedures relating to fraud and compliance with laws and regulations. We also enquired of management about their own identification and assessment of the risks of irregularities.
We obtained an understanding of the legal and regulatory frameworks that the company operates in, and identified the key laws and regulations that:
• had a direct effect on the determination of material amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. These included the UK companies Act and tax legislation; and
• do not have a direct effect on the financial statements but compliance with which may be fundamental to the company’s ability to operate or to avoid a material penalty.
We discussed among the audit engagement team regarding the opportunities and incentives that may exist within the organisation for fraud and how and where fraud might occur in the financial statements.
In common with all audits under ISAs (UK), we are also required to perform specific procedures to respond to the risk of management override. In addressing the risk of fraud through management override of controls, we tested the appropriateness of journals and other adjustments; we assessed whether the judgements used in making accounting estimates are indicative of a potential bias; and we evaluated the business rationale of any significant transactions that are unusual or outside the normal course of business.
In addition to the above, our procedures to respond to the risks identified included reviewing financial statement disclosures by testing to supporting documentation to assess compliance with provisions of relevant laws and regulations described as having a direct effect on the financial statements; performing analytical procedures to identify any unusual or unexpected relationships that may indicate risks of material misstatement due to fraud; enquiring of management concerning actual and potential litigations and claims, and instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations; and reading minutes of meetings of those charged with governance.
Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, there is a risk that we will not detect all irregularities, including those leading to a material misstatement in the financial statements or non- compliance with regulation. This risk increases the more that compliance with a law or regulation is removed from events and transactions reflected in the financial statements, as we will be less likely to become aware of instances of non-compliance.
The risk is also greater regarding irregularities occurring due to fraud rather than error, as fraud involves intentional concealment, forgery, collusion, omission or misrepresentation.
A further description of our responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial Reporting Council's website www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of our auditor's report.