New Clause 3
Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill
6:30 pm
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
It deals only with the first part of my point, which I accept has been covered. It does not deal with the second part, about subsection (3), which deals with the Lord Chief Justice or the nominated judge. As I understand the procedure under the Bill, the concept is that the Lord Chief Justice should be a help and that the judge-alone trial order should be made only with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice or a judge nominated by him.
As far as I am aware, nothing in the 2003 Act or the Bill requires the Lord Chief Justice to listen to oral representations. In other words, it is a paper-only exercise. I certainly accept that many decisions are paper-only exercises—for example, a decision by the single judge about whether to grant leave to appeal against conviction or sentence is a paper exercise only, albeit subject to the proviso that the prospective appellant can apply to the full court.
I agree that there are situations when courts determine matters as a paper-only exercise, but with a matter of this import, I suggest that it is a good thing for the defendant who does not want to be made the subject of an order to have the opportunity to make oral representations to the Lord Chief Justice. That is the burden of new clause 3(3), and I hope that it finds favour with the Committee.