Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill

This debate has been more interesting than I anticipated it would be. We have heard about three different types of argument—my hon. Friends have counted them—on why we should move in the direction proposed by the Government. I shall concentrate on new clause 5. The fundamental flaw now revealed in the Government’s argument—it has been quoted by Liberal Democrat Members—is that they are praying in aid an argument that could apply to any long trial. I should like to discuss the evidence in the Jubilee line case. To those who read our proceedings later, I commend the full, officially commissioned report, ““Report on Interviews with Jurors in the Jubilee Line Case”” by Professor Sally Lloyd-Bostock of Birmingham university. A section entitled ““Effects on employment and careers””, from which the Solicitor-General took examples and read excerpts, does indeed say that a long trial could impact adversely on the individuals concerned, but it goes on to address, in greater detail, the issue of fraud trials and the type of trials that we are discussing. The only substantive addition that I want to make to the debate is to put on record what the report said on that subject, because this debate is not about long trials, but about fraud trials, and uniquely and unusually, we have clear evidence on fraud trials. A section headed ““Portrayal in the media”” said:"““Jurors felt unfairly portrayed as the cause of the collapse of the trial. They particularly objected to the portrayal of them in the press as unable to understand evidence or remember evidence and reach a fair verdict. Some were not particularly concerned, but others were very upset.””" Then there is a quote of someone:"““I was just so angry—to blame us when it was not managed properly, it was a farce.””" There is a whole section dealing with jurors’ responses to cases such as the Jubilee line case. Bearing in mind that that was one of the longest trials ever and that it was later aborted, it is interesting that under the heading, ““The jurors’ attitude to their jury service at the start of the trial and as it progressed””, the report says:"““All but one juror still definitely support the principle of jury service. There was considerable concern…expressed about the removal of the right to jury trial, including for long trials.””" That is the jurors, and not the politicians, speaking. The report quotes a juror:"““on any trial, [trial by jury] is a fundamental right of any British person. If you start bringing in judges, or financial wizards or whatever you are not being judged by your peers.””" The professor’s report goes on to say, in a section called ““The jury’s understanding of the case—overview””, that"““There are obvious limitations to assessing the extent to which the jury in fact understood the evidence and the issues in the case on the basis of the interviews. Because a juror says he or she understands, we cannot be sure he or she really did. Moreover, the jurors were interviewed almost five months after the…trial…Within those limitations, it did appear that when the case collapsed this jury, taken as a group, had a good understanding of the case, the issues and the evidence so far, as presented to them… The interviews show the importance of considering the jury as a whole.””" The report continues:"““The jurors’ assessments of their own and others’ understanding produced a consistent, generally optimistic picture.””" In that same section, following paragraphs show that even though the jurors were interviewed five months later, without their notebooks and their notes, they were not thrown by the fact that the trial was a fraud trial. That is the fundamental point. The Solicitor-General is wrong when he says, ““We’ve tried everything else””, because we have not yet done so. In the past two years, there has been the Lord Chief Justice’s protocol of 2005, the changes brought about as a result of the Jubilee line case, the inspector’s report and the Law Officers’ recommendations, the Fraud Act 2006, and the testing of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. In addition, there is a cross-governmental review that has not yet produced its final report and recommendations. All that has meant that there have been practical changes in the way in which prosecution and defence manage their cases. The point of new clause 5 is that if we lose the argument on the principle, we at least want some reserve positions or fall-backs. The best fall-back position would be to ensure that burdensomeness and length of trial were not sufficient of themselves; there must be an ““interests of justice”” case and a ““safety of the verdict”” case, too. That is why we would include the backstop positions set out in the new clauses. I ask the House to support new clause 5—if you allow us to vote on it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—not because it would be good to have a Bill that included the amendment, but because if, in the end, we have to accept a Bill that takes such a nonsensical and illogical route, it is better to make that slight improvement to the conditions that must be met if there is to be a non-jury trial. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.