New Clause 5
Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill
7:30 pm
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General & Shadow Spokesman On Community Cohesion, Law Officers (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I shall endeavour to be brief, seeing that this is the last new clause that we have to consider in Committee.
I must first confess to the Committee that when I went to the office to present amendments to this Bill for consideration, it was my desire that the Committee might debate having trials by special juries. The Solicitor-General knows well that we on these Benches were always prepared to consider that one area of compromise to deal with the issue of burdensomeness. I believed that it would be possible to put together jury panels consisting of individuals who were well versed in financial matters, which would allow them to sit on such panels and consider the verdict—because I regard having an independent assessment, separate from the judge, as so important for preserving confidence in our criminal justice system. We should maintain the principle that it is not the state against an individual, with the judge reaching a decision, but independent members of the community who decide on guilt or innocence.
That would have been my preferred course. Yet although I sought as ingeniously as I could to suggest variously using the terminology “panel”, or “group of experts”, or any other device, I discovered that—despite all my creative ingenuity—those better versed in drafting would tell me firmly that it could not be done, as the principle at Second Reading was that we were getting rid of juries. Even a special jury was a jury: even a “special panel” was a jury by another name. So, I regret that I have not been as successful as I would have wished in providing an opportunity for the Committee to revisit that issue.
I must put on the record that I believe there was always the possibility of compromise on such a principle, including a potential departure from having 12 to have a smaller panel. I am convinced that if this is a real area of difficulty, that would be the wise way to proceed. There are plenty of people of the right age around, being semi-retired, who could make up such a panel and be only too happy to spend months poring over a case that was forensically interesting to them. They would also have the independence to deliver a verdict that would command public acceptance and confidence.
Seeing as I could not do that, the only thing to do was to put before the Committee the proposal that the judge should sit with assessors. That apparently is permissible, as they would be with—and retire with—the judge, and the judge would still have a role in the verdict. I must accept one point: if the motion were to proceed, it would need fleshing out. On the basis of what I have tabled, I accept that it is not clear whether there would be a majority verdict or a casting vote from the judge, and that other details would need further examination. The only merit of the proposal is that the final decision is not that of the judge on his own. If a judge were to sit with a panel of six assessors, there would have to be unanimity or a majority, or a straight majority with a casting vote from the judge if there were a three-three split on guilt or innocence at the end of a trial. The proposal has, however as I say, the merit that the judge’s role is diluted, and that the role of the independent assessors, suitably selected, is enhanced.
I should be grateful for the Government’s response—it is a probing motion—about why such a course of action does not commend itself. It would be useful for the Committee to know at what point the Government decide that the introduction of lay assessors becomes impossible. The Solicitor-General knows—I do not think that I am giving away any secrets—that on occasion, there have been hints from the Government that some form of lay assessor might be acceptable. Generally speaking, however, they have been talking about two lay assessors and a judge. That is an uncomfortable concept, because it does not have the necessary critical mass; I should prefer more assessors. Again, I hope that I can tease out of the Solicitor-General the Government’s views on the gist of the proposal, its principle and its detail.
I want to make it clear that in moving the new clause, it is in no sense a preferred option. It makes absolutely no difference to my hostility to the Bill, nor I suspect to the outright hostility that will occur in another place, too. There would be a way forward—a way forward that I rather sought to put before the Committee. Unfortunately, however, the Government’s implacable desire to get rid of trial by jury makes it impossible for us to consider it, which I regret. Even at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute, if the Government were wise, they might reconsider that issue.