Financial Times, London, June 22, 2005 For more than a decade, Britain’s law officers have argued that juries are incapable of trying lengthy fraud cases. Yesterday, Lord Goldsmith, attorney-general, unveiled another attempt to persuade parliament to end trial by jury
Financial Times, London, June 22, 2005
For more than a decade, Britain’s law officers have argued that juries are incapable of trying lengthy fraud cases. Yesterday, Lord Goldsmith, attorney-general, unveiled another attempt to persuade parliament to end trial by jury in such cases, on the grounds of cost and complexity. Since US juries have found no difficulty in trying those blamed for recent corporate scandals, the case is far from proved.
With no hint of irony, the attorney-general’s press release announcing Lord Goldsmith’s decision was headed “Government limits risk to justice”. The risks the government sees are two-fold: that fraudsters escape justice, and that their defence lawyers milk the legal aid budget. But the risk of miscarriages of justice and the risk that this would be the thin end of the wedge for trial by jury must also be weighed.
To support the case for change, the attorney listed four recent trials – all of which ended in convictions or findings of guilt – and a 1991-92 trial where the convictions were overturned on appeal. This is hardly an overwhelming argument that juries are unable to understand complex frauds. Nor do the figures quoted for the cost of those trials seem unduly high – given the verdicts, it was money well spent.
The attorney failed to quote a better example of justice aborted at enormous expense: the collapse in March of a corruption case connected with the Jubilee line underground railway extension. The proceedings cost tens of millions of pounds and lasted more than 18 months, with repeated delays, extended legal argument and adjournments for illness. Two jurors left the case – one because she was pregnant, another to face benefit fraud charges.
At the time, the outcome was cited as evidence that jury trials were too unwieldy but it was clear that the fault lay with the gross mismanagement of the proceedings. The lord chief justice has issued new guidelines to streamline complex criminal trials, which are now being applied, apparently with some success. Yet Lord Goldsmith has decided to go ahead with removing juries from such cases, even though his own inquiry into the debacle has yet to make public its findings.
It is premature to write off juries in complex fraud cases. US juries have found no difficulty in trials over the corporate scandals that followed the collapse of the 1990s stock market boom. Martha Stewart, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom, Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski and the Rigases of Adelphia Communications have all been convicted. Andersen’s conviction was overturned on appeal but it was the judge’s advice to the jury that was the reason – not problems in handling the evidence.
Plainly there is a danger of miscarriages of justice with lengthy cases, which is why they must be managed effectively.
But trial by jury has been a pillar of justice in Britain for centuries and should not be lightly swept away, especially when it has proved to be no impediment to conviction in even the most complex cases.
