SFO wants to end trial by jury in complex financial cases
The Serious Fraud Office has failed in a number of high-profile prosecutions over the past 10 years. Now it seems to be blaming juries for those failures. Steve Boggan finds out why.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The head of the Serious Fraud Office and her predecessor have called for an end to the right to trial by jury in complicated financial trials. Rosalind Wright (above right) and George Staple (left) believe the over-simplification of trials to accommodate jurors' lack of specialised knowledge is resulting in prosecutions failing.
The calls met immediate resistance last night from Liberty, formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties, which said it it would be "seriously concerned" about any moves to end the right to trial by jury in any type of case.
Instead of 12 ordinary men and women, Ms Wright and Mr Staple would like to see trials heard by some form of panel of experts headed by a judge. Speaking at a symposium on economic crime at Jesus College, Cambridge, Ms Wright, director of the SFO, described the jury system as one of the "pitfalls" facing prosecutors.
"The prosecutor strives to present a complex commercial fraud to a jury of lay people in a way that enables them to understand the intricacies of the commercial transactions and understand the documents, often the most convoluted and intricate sets of accounts," she said. "But this means having to prune a case to its bare essentials, losing, in the process, substantial elements of the total criminality alleged."
Once cases are split into a series of simple transactions "you run the risk of losing the total picture," she said. "You are also in danger of the `Pandora factor', the ruling by [Mr Justice] Buckley to stop the second [Kevin] Maxwell trial in its tracks as `unfair' on the accused ... If you don't split them, you have a huge unmanageable monster of a case."
In a separate interview with The Independent, Mr Staple, director of the SFO from April 1992 until April of this year, said only a few extremely complicated cases would be affected. "We are all aware of the civil liberties element of the argument but we are also anxious that the administration of justice should be allowed to flow smoothly," he said. "Fraud is becoming more complicated all the time. People are now talking about fraud in cyberspace over the Internet. Juries of ordinary people already have enormous difficulties understanding many of the technical terms."
Philip Leach, legal officer at Liberty, said the moves would be resisted. "We would have serious concerns about the removal of juries in these kinds of cases." He said juries were "a crucial element of our legal system".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments