New Clause 4
Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill
6:45 pm
Simon Hughes (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Attorney General, Constitutional Affairs; North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)
I am sympathetic to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument, and he has given reasons for it. The most important issue for us to face could have been the burdensome consequences of trials for juries. The Liberal Democrats think either that that is not the case, that the burden on juries is not unique to fraud trials or, if it is, that it has been partly dealt with so that such trials will be less burdensome. For one, another or all of those reasons, we do not think that there is a reason for moving to a different sort of trial.
This is a more substantive and well rounded point. An experienced judge would be well able to consider it. Bluntly, it is on a different level from the pragmatic, functional matter of length of trial, documentation and number of witnesses. It relates to what we in this country train and employ judges to do—they are all trained now, and well trained—which is to conduct a trial that, in the end, proceeds fairly.
There is a danger with complex trials. They could be complex trials for offences of affray, which is halfway down the league table of seriousness, or for terrorist offences; they could be complex trials involving detailed forensic evidence for offences of serious assault, homicide and so on, which can be burdensome because of the trauma to the jury and witnesses. The danger is that, for all sorts of reasons, the verdict might not be safe.
Juries are confronted with the issue of how to ensure that they bring in a safe verdict. Juries are told over and again by the judge in summing up that they have to be satisfied that they are sure beyond a reasonable doubt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made the point that such a verdict may err on the side of acquittal rather than give a verdict that was, as it were, just over the line of being persuaded. The test is much higher. The bar is much higher because we do not want thisto be a country in which convictions are thought tobe dubious, questionable, marginal or any other appropriate adjective. We have unanimous verdicts, but in exceptional cases, verdicts of 11 to one or 10 to two.
New clause 4 is a serious and more rounded proposition, and is worth considering. To be fair to the Solicitor-General, it deals with an issue that has been reasonably addressed, whereas the issue of burdensome consequences has not been, for reasons that we have talked about—not least the procedural changes. I would be interested to hear his comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I do not have a definite view, but if we must have a test for a trial to be conducted without a jury, we are sympathetic to the one in new clause 4. It may be a better, safer and more rounded test than the one in the current legislation.