New Clause 4
Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill
6:45 pm
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is an important safeguard. I concede at once that its purpose is to redraw the test set out in section 43(5) of the 2003 Act. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned that test. I wish to discuss the criteria on the basis of which a judge-alone trial is to be ordered. As the Bill stands, a judge-alone trial will be ordered when, by reason of complexity or length, a trial is likely to be
“so burdensome upon the jury that the interests of justice require”
and so on.
The attention of judges is therefore drawn to the burden on the jury caused by either complexity or length. On Second Reading and in the debate on the 2003 Act, Ministers said time and again that, for the most part, they were not seeking to assert that such cases are so difficult that a jury cannot comprehend what is going on. They are concentrating on the burdensome nature of such trials, which is not peculiar to fraud cases. Many classes of case could be said to be burdensome by reason of complexity or length. Terrorism trials are cases in point—there have recently been very long trials—as are conspiracies to import drugs. Trials can be very lengthy and complicated. The same is true of multi-handed affrays, for which trials can be very long and could therefore be said to be burdensome.
Once the concept of burdensomeness as a result of complexity and/or length has been introduced, that asserts a principle that drives a coach and horses through our commitment to jury trials. Once that precedent is established, it will be difficult to say that there is no argument for doing away with jury trials in terrorism, affray, conspiracy and other cases. I strongly object to a test based on the burdensome nature of trials, because it establishes an unfortunate precedent.
I have therefore tried to apply a different criterion. Generally, I do not think that a jury would find it too complicated to determine a trial, but I am prepared to acknowledge the possibility. If a case arises whose complexity and length impugns the safety of the verdict, that seems a situation where the Committee might look favourably on a judge-alone trial. I have already given examples of how that situation might work in a defendant’s favour, as did the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I strongly resist the proposition that we should rely on the burden placed on the jury. However, in a small number of cases, because of complexity or length, it might be proper to consider whether or not a verdict is safe. That is a different approach, and I commend it to the Committee.
It is unlikely that there will be many such cases, but I do not exclude the possibility that there will be one or two every so often. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will give favourable consideration to what I admit is a redraft of the criteria set out in section 43(5) of the 2003 Act.