| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.49 pm
The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on obtaining the debate, albeit not at the first time of asking. We had an assignation about 18 months ago in the middle of the night which we were not able to complete. I have listened to his points with interest, and he made them with his usual force and effectiveness.
The debate gives me an opportunity to confirm the Government's view that the Serious Fraud Office plays and will continue to play a successful part in combating and deterring financial fraud. Since the SFO was set up in April 1988, it has developed a unique body of skills and expertise, and I speak as somebody who has appeared as counsel in a number of large and heavy fraud cases over the years.
There is much ill-informed and sometimes malicious comment about the record of the Serious Fraud Office by those who have not taken care to look at the complete picture. Their attack upon it is seriously flawed.The reality is that, rather than being in decline, the Serious Fraud Office is expanding, and it is dealing with an increasing work load. The work load was 50 active cases when the Davie report was received more than a year ago, and the case load is now 64.
What is more, the number of cases in which the SFO is answering requests for assistance from foreign jurisdictions by virtue of the extension of its powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has increased significantly, and has contributed to the effectiveness of the office's work. The number of staff, both professional and support, has increased to accommodate the expansion: 32 new posts have been created, of which 13 have been filled to date. More are to come.
I do not wish to bake old bread and go over cases such as Levitt and Guinness, so I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to more recent successes.In January this year, Deacon, a solicitor who defrauded business men in an elaborate advance fee fraud, was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment after he hadbeen convicted. His co-defendant, Fuller, received a seven-year sentence. Van der Horst received a
three-year sentence of imprisonment for corruption at the Southampton crown court in January, after he had admitted taking £1.6 million in bribes for ship repair contracts.
Graham Ford, the Sussex solicitor about whose case my hon. Friend spoke, received 10 years' imprisonment in December last year after pleading guilty to stealing £5 million of clients' money. In July last year, Mohammed Naviede, the former chairman of Arrows, was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for an estimated £100 million fraud on international banks. To put the record of the SFO in its true context, it is quite untrue to say that it is a failing or unsuccessful organisation.
In the brief time available to me, I shall deal with the main points that my hon. Friend has raised. It is intrinsic in the prosecution of complex and serious fraud that the investigation will be expensive. There is no avoiding that. The Conservative party, having taken the political step to ensure that serious and complex fraud is prosecuted with energy, has then to will the means of achieving that by voting appropriate sums of money not only for the investigation, but for the subsequent prosecution.
The investigation and prosecution involve the use of private sector firms of accountants on a case-by-case basis, as in the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and they involve the employment of extremely experienced Queen's Counsel, again on a case-by-case basis--members of the independent Bar, of high calibre and with appropriate skills and experience to prosecute such cases.
It follows from what I have just said that, if those cases are to be prosecuted effectively, a fair trial requires that the defendants have appropriate representation. There must be equality of arms. It is unrealistic to think that large sums of money can be expended properly in the investigation and prosecution of offences but that justice can be done without appropriate recompense for those instructed to appear on behalf of the defence.
My hon. Friend has referred to the record of the SFO. It has prosecuted 147 cases to date, and convictions have been recorded against 62.3 per cent. of all defendants. In more than 75 per cent. of those cases, at least one defendant, usually the principal defendant, has been convicted. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is an impressive and enviable record. The answer that I have given him today should be taken in its full context.
Criticisms about the amount of legal aid expenditure and whether individuals in particular cases are entitled to the legal representation they receive are easy to make. The Legal Aid Board has at its disposal effective weapons to inquire into whether legal aid has been properly granted or not.
Another complaint from my hon. Friend is that large sums of money disappear, and at the end of the day no one is convicted. That is so in certain circumstances,but I am sure that he would agree that there can be misjudgment, mismanagement and financial catastrophe on a large scale, just as there can be dishonesty on a large scale. The mere fact that there has been a financial catastrophe on a grand scale does not necessarily show that there has been dishonesty.
My hon. Friend's final point related to trial by jury, and he repeated what others have said before him: that
in such trials juries cannot understand the case that is put in front of them. Although many of the cases are by definition complex, it is the execution of fraud that is complex, whereas the central notion and principle behind it is often perfectly simple and can be expressed in a few words.
In 1986, recommendation 82 of the Roskill report stated that trial by jury should be replaced by trial by judge and two lay members. However, Lord Roskill would be the first to acknowledge that, since his report of 10 years ago, immense strides have been taken to improve the presentation of serious and complex fraud cases. The judge in the recent Deacon case, which involved loss to the Belling pension fund, praised its presentation and the use of information technology.
In Serious Fraud Office cases, it is becoming routine--rather than exceptional--for use to be made of information technology. It is used in the retrieval of documentation and in the presentation of graphics to the jury--showing the way in which the fraud operated, often in just a few seconds. Information technology is used so that counsel can highlight, on their screens, the important pieces of evidence, and they are supplied with virtually an instantaneous transcript of the evidence. This is a quantum leap forward in the conduct of such cases.
Before hon. Members repeat the contention that such cases cannot be understood by juries, I invite them to go to the Serious Fraud Office to see a presentation--which I have had the benefit of seeing--that shows how such cases are conducted. I extend that invitation to my hon. Friend, who I am sure will find it interesting and instructive. I suggest that it will cause him to reassess his criticism that juries cannot understand what is going on in those cases. Juries often have a very good nose for fraud. The sole issue before the jury is: what was the defendant's state of mind at the time; was he being dishonest?
There is a case for considering modes of trial other than trial by jury. However, such consideration must be edged with caution and not taken lightly. A number of questions have to be considered, particularly whether any replacement for the judge and jury will be any better than the existing procedure. Very often, when an issue in the case is the jury's perception of banking practice and financial institutions, and whether someone was turning a blind eye to what was going on, its members are remarkably independently placed to form such a judgment. It might not be easy to find people who are willing to sit on fraud panels.
It is also important to consider how to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, justifying a special tribunal for serious and complex fraud cases, and, on the other, not having a similar tribunal for other complicated cases. It is incorrect to believe that the only complicated cases involve fraud--other cases, such as multi-handed robberies and child abuse, are lengthy and may involve a detailed analysis of complicated medical or technical evidence, such as in cases involving manslaughter.
The issue is by no means clear; it requires great thought and examination. Certainly, my hon. Friend could say that there has probably been a shift of view since Roskill reported. Certain people who were then
of the opinion that trial by jury was the only way to try these cases may, with the benefit of further experience, have shifted their view, although I doubt that they have finally come to the conclusion that such change needs to be made and that we must get rid of trial by judge and jury in most cases.
The Government have resolved to re-examine the issue and will do so in a careful and measured way, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already explained to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |