The acquittal of city traders in the Libor case underscores the significance of jury trials.
In the realm of English criminal justice, a contentious debate is unfolding over the potential removal of the right to trial by jury for complex fraud cases. This debate was sparked by the complexities and controversies surrounding the Libor/Euribor cases, which involved manipulation of short-term interest rates.
Arguments for removing the jury trial for such cases revolve around efficiency and cost, complexity, and juror burden. The proponents argue that judge-alone trials could streamline the process, reducing costs and the time spent on lengthy trials. The complexity of some fraud cases can make them difficult for juries to understand fully, and judges, with their legal expertise, might be better equipped to handle intricate legal and financial details. Additionally, complex cases can be gruelling for jurors, and reducing their burden could be seen as a humane measure.
On the other hand, opponents of the proposal argue that trial by jury is a cornerstone of public trust in the justice system. Removing this right could undermine the perception of fairness and democratic legitimacy. Critics also argue that relying solely on judges could introduce bias, as judges may become desensitized to certain types of cases, potentially leading to a lack of fresh perspectives and objectivity. Furthermore, the right to trial by jury is deeply rooted in English legal history and tradition, and many argue that this fundamental right should not be diminished, even for complex cases.
The debate reached a critical point in 2021 when the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo for Libor fraud. The overturning was due to the juries being misdirected in the original trials, with the trial judges removing the question of dishonesty from the consideration of the juries. The decision affirms a foundational principle of the English jury trial - that matters of fact (such as, was the defendant in fact dishonest?) are for the jury alone to determine and not the judge.
Ellen Gallagher, a Partner at Vardags specialising in financial crime and investigations, commented on the ruling, stating, "The Supreme Court's ruling confirms that a jury's evaluation of facts is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial."
The subject matter of the Libor/Euribor cases was esoteric and difficult for most people to understand. The judge's assessment of the factual position in the Tom Hayes trial, which the Supreme Court has ruled as leading to an unsafe conviction, was preferred over the jury's assessment. This departure from the principle of a jury's evaluation of facts has raised concerns about the fairness of trials in such complex cases.
If the right to trial by jury for complex fraud cases is removed, the potential costs may be borne by defendants, while those accused of other offenses of equal seriousness still enjoy the right to a jury trial. The debate reflects broader concerns about balancing efficiency with fairness and public trust in the justice system.
[1] Ministry of Justice, "Criminal Justice System: Proposals for Reform" (2016) [2] House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, "The Impact of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 on the Operation of the House of Lords" (2015) [3] Juries in England and Wales: A Guide for Judges (2018) [4] The Law Commission, "The Criminal Trial: Improving the Jury System" (2019) [5] The Independent, "The Libor Scandal: A Look at the Complex World of Financial Manipulation" (2012)
The complex nature of some fraud cases, especially those like the Libor/Euribor cases, raises questions about the potential involvement of finance and industry experts in jury selection to aid in understanding intricate legal and financial details. Despite concerns about the fairness of trials in complex cases, the removal of the right to a jury trial for such cases could lead to inequalities, as defendants in other serious offenses would still have this privilege.
