Abstract/Summary

This article contributes to the ongoing discourse on whistleblower protection. Specifically, the article examines the important question of whether the protection provided for in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1988 (PIDA) adequately protects the interests of whistleblowers in the UK. The article places a substantial emphasis on the current whistleblower architecture by focusing on (a) the challenges and paradoxes of the statutory provisions; (b) addressing why these are problematic; (c) and the interpretation of the court through case law. In its examination of these issues, the paper limits its scope specifically to the UK financial system and considers the approach adopted by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. It is argued that while whistleblowing could and should be utilised as an active mechanism to support the traditional methods of regulation, it is important to ensure ample protection is given to the potential whistleblower and sufficient punishment is given to those who are found to be at fault. The paper utilises a critical analysis approach by reviewing the statutory provisions of PIDA in order to decipher the level of effectiveness of the protection itself. The paper concludes that PIDA has become obsolete and lacks the capability to offer adequate protection to whistleblowers who courageously disclose information which may uncover the sophisticated means in which wrongdoings may occur. It is argued that while the law itself requires urgent reform, there is also a pressing need to improve the cultural outlook around promoting whistleblowing. One of the methods of achieving this is may be the enactment of a new Whistleblower Act, rather than an amendment of the present. It is submitted that this would alleviate a large portion of the challenges as presented in this paper