'Expert panel' fraud trials plan rejected

A Tory demand for complex fraud trials to be decided by an 'expert panel' of accountants and other professionals was rejected by the Government as it forced legislation ending the right to a trial by jury through the Commons.

The proposal was put forward by Conservative shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve in an eleventh-hour bid to retain some separation between the tasks of deciding guilt or innocence on the facts of a case and dealing with points of law.

Grieve said what would amount to special juries would be drawn from bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Society of Actuaries and others with knowledge of financial documents.

He said members could be drawn from among those who had taken early
retirement who 'would have the sagacity, wisdom and time to do the work and would be willing to do it' and he made it clear that a government concession on the lines he proposed would enable the Tories to back the bill and get it through the House of Lords, amidst speculation that peers traditionally jealous to preserve civil liberties will reject the measure, facing the government with the need to wait a year and force it through, using the Parliament Act to over-ride the Lords' veto.

The proposal appeared to have the support of rebel Labour MPs but was flatly rejected by Solicitor General Mike O'Brien , who claimed there would be a risk that their private views would influence the way they judged the evidence without prosecutors or the defence having the opportunity to comment.

He said it was 'unclear' how suitable experts could be found or how they would be paid.

O'Brien said he had not claimed ordinary jurors were incapable of understanding the arguments bin complex cases, simply that complex trials of up to six months or a year placed a burden on an individual juror that was intolerable.

He claimed there would be only half a dozen non-jury trials a year - with a maximum of 20 - and denied this was the thin end of a wedge that would lead to the abolition of the right to trial by jury.

O'Brien defended a government decision to move from requiring jury-less trials to be conducted by High Court judges to include certain circuit judges as well.

Opponents objected that jurors in the collapsed Jubilee Line corruption case had criticised the prosecution and the management of the trial, not the procedure, and insisted ways could be found to reduce the length of trials through better case management and action to prevent defence delaying tactics.

The bill received final Commons approval by 281 votes to 246, a reduced government majority of 35 compared with a normal 67.

Further reading:

New law helps fight on fraud

Fraud trials the focus of Queen's Speech

Trial without jury dropped from Criminal Justice Act