rs62501.63-69

House of Commons

Session 2006 - 07
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament

63

House of Commons

Thursday 25th January 2007

Report Stage Proceedings

Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill

NEW CLAUSES

Applications under section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: notice of transfer

Secretary John Reid

Added  nc1

To move the following Clause:—

‘At the end of section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) insert—

“(8)
Before the commencement of paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 so far as it

inserts section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the reference to

that section in subsection (1)(b) is to have effect as if it were a reference

to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.”.’.

Criminal procedure rules in complex fraud cases

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Not selected  nc2

To move the following Clause:—

‘For section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (applications by

prosecution for certain fraud cases to be conducted without a jury) substitute—

“43
Amendment of the Courts Act 2003

(1)
The Courts Act 2003 (c. 30) is amended as follows.

(2)
In section 69, after ‘(1)’, insert ‘Subject to section 69A,”.

(3)
After section 69 insert—

Report Stage Proceedings: 25th January 2007
64

Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill, continued

“69A
Criminal procedure rules in complex fraud cases

(1)
There are to be special rules of court (called the ‘Criminal Procedure

Rules in Complex Fraud Cases’) governing the practice and procedure to

be followed in the Crown Court in complex fraud cases.

(2)
Criminal Procedure Rules in Complex Fraud Cases are to be made by the

Criminal Procedure Rule Committee.

(3)
The power to make Criminal Procedure Rules in Complex Fraud Cases

includes power to make provision for—

(a)
the determination of a case as a complex fraud case;

(b)
management hearings for complex fraud case trials;

(c)
prior to the commencement of the trial—

(i)
delivery of statements of case by both prosecution and

defence;

(ii)
agreement of a schedule of relevant facts;

(iii)
agreement of documents to be disclosed to the jury;

(iv)
agreement of a list of issues;

(v)
exchange of expert evidence;

(vi)
the determination of preliminary issues, including

applications to stay or dismiss for abuse of process;

(vii)
on the application of the defendant, indications of

sentence from the court.

(d)
at trial—

(i)
the composition, vetting and challenging of the jury

panel;

(ii)
the making of opening statements to the jury by both

prosecution and defence;

(iii)
an appropriate recess thereafter for consideration by the

jury of the opening statements, the agreed facts and

documents and agreed list of issues;

(iv)
opportunities for clarification by the jury of the material

and evidence before them at all stages of the trial;

(v)
the electronic presentation of evidence;

(vi)
the limitation of prolix cross-examination.

(4)
The power to make or alter Criminal Procedure Rules in Complex Fraud

Cases shall be exercised in accordance with the principles of section

69(4) and shall follow the process set out in section 72.

(5)
The Lord Chancellor shall have the same power to amend, repeal or

revoke any enactment contained in section 73 in order to facilitate the

making of Criminal Procedure Rules in Complex Fraud Cases.”.’.

Report Stage Proceedings: 25th January 2007
65

Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill, continued

Criminal procedure rules in complex fraud cases: consequential provisions

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Not selected  NC3

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) is amended as follows.

(2)
In the title of section 45 for “sections 43 and” substitute “section”.

(3)
Omit section 45(1)(a).

(4)
In section 45(5), omit “43 or”.

(5)
In section 45(9), omit “43 or”.

(6)
In section 46(7), omit “43 or”.

(7)
In section 48(1), omit “43,”.

(8)
In section 50(3) in the substituted section 45—

(a)
in the title for “sections 43 and” substitute “section”,

(b)
omit subsection (1)(a), and

(c)
in subsection (5) omit “43 or”.’.

Conditions to be satisfied

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Withdrawn  NC4

To move the following Clause:—

‘In section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), for subsection (5)

substitute—

“(5)
The condition is the complexity of the trial or the length of the trial (or

both) would be likely to make the trial so burdensome to the members of

a jury hearing the trial that the interests of justice required that the trial

should be conducted without a jury.”.’.

Conditions to be satisfied (No. 2)

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Mr Douglas Hogg

Mr Dominic Grieve

David Davis

Mr Crispin Blunt

Negatived on division  NC5

To move the following Clause:—

Report Stage Proceedings: 25th January 2007
66

Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill, continued

‘In section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), for subsection (5)

substitute—

“(5)
The condition is that by reason of the complexity or length of the trial, or

both, and their likely impact on the safety of the verdict, the interests of

justice require that serious consideration should be given to the question

of whether the trial should be conducted without a jury.”.’.

Application of Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to Northern Ireland

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Not selected  NC7

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
Section 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (application of Part 7 to

Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.

(2)
In subsection (1)(b) for “(3)” substitute “(2A)”.

(3)
After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A)
Omit section 43.”.

(4)
In subsection (3) in the substituted section 45—

(a)
in the title for “sections 43 and” substitute “section”,

(b)
omit subsection (1)(a), and

(c)
in subsection (5) omit “43 or”.’.

Separate judge for applications, etc

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Mr Dominic Grieve

David Davis

Mr Crispin Blunt

Not selected  NC8

To move the following Clause:—

‘In section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), leave out subsection (3)

and insert—

“(3)
Subject to subsection (3A), where a trial is conducted or continued

without a jury, the courts is to have all the powers, authorities and

jurisdiction which the court would have had if the trial had been

conducted or continued with a jury (including power to determine any

question and to make any finding which would be required to be

determined or made by a jury).

(3A)
Following the making of the order that the trial is to be conducted or

continued without a jury, any hearing or question that would, had the

Report Stage Proceedings: 25th January 2007
67

Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill, continued

order not been made, been heard or determined by a judge sitting without

a jury, should be heard or determined by a judge other than the trial judge,

unless:

(a)
the hearing or question relates solely to the timetabling or

administration of the case; and

(b)
no material prejudicial to the defendant or to any of the

defendants will be discussed or submitted to the judge at that

hearing or during the determination of that question.”.’.

Applications by defence for certain fraud cases to be conducted without a jury

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Withdrawn  NC9

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) is amended as follows.

(2)
In subsection (2) leave out “prosecution” and insert “defendant, or any of the

defendants in cases where there is more than one defendant”.

(3)
In subsection (7) leave out “prosecution” and insert “defendant, or any of the

defendants in cases where there is more than one defendant”.’.

Duty to hear oral representations

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Not called  NC10

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) is amended as follows.

(2)
After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A)
In determining an application under subsection (2) the judge will grant—

(a)
the prosecution,

(b)
the defendant, or

(c)
any of the defendants in cases where there is more than one

defendant,


the opportunity to make oral representations, and will take such

representations into account in deciding whether to make an order that

the trial is to be conducted without a jury.”.

(3)
In subsection (4), at end insert “and no approval may be given in circumstances

where the defendant, or any of the defendants in cases where there is more than

one defendant, have not been granted an opportunity to make oral representations

Report Stage Proceedings: 25th January 2007
68

Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill, continued

under subsection (3A) and for those representations to have been taken into

account.”.’.

Safeguards

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Negatived on division  NC11

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) is amended as follows.

(2)
In subsection (3) after second “satisfied”, insert “, or otherwise believes that such

an order would, if made, significantly disadvantage or otherwise prejudice a

defendant, or any of the defendants in cases where there is more than one

defendant,”.

(3)
In subsection (7) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, leave out “prosecution” and

insert “, the defendant, or any of the defendants in cases where there is more than

one defendant.”.’.

Expert assessors

Mr Douglas Hogg

Mr Greg Knight

Not selected  NC12

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
The Lord Chief Justice shall appoint six assessors drawn from—

(a)
the Royal Institute of Chartered Accountants,

(b)
the Society of Actuaries, or

(c)
other persons prescribed in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor


to determine, with the judge, the facts of fraud cases conducted without a jury

under section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.’.

Application by defendants for certain fraud cases to be conducted without a jury (No.2)

Mr Douglas Hogg

Mr Greg Knight

Simon Hughes

Mr David Heath

Negatived on division  nc13

To move the following Clause:—

Report Stage Proceedings: 25th January 2007
69

Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill, continued

‘In section 43(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), after “prosecution”,

insert “, the defendant, or any of the defendants in cases where there is more than

one defendant,”’.

Rights of the defendant

Mr Douglas Hogg

Mr Greg Knight

Not called  nc14

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2)
In subsection (3)—

(a)
for “that the condition” substitute “any of the conditions”, and

(b)
after second “satisfied” insert “or otherwise believes that an order if made

would significantly disadvantage or otherwise prejudice the defendant

(or any of the defendants in cases where there is more than one

defendant).”.

(3)
In subsection (4) after “him” insert “who, before he gives such an approval, shall

consider whether the prosecution (or the defendant, or any of the defendants in

cases where there is more than one defendant) should be given the opportunity to

make oral or written representations to him, and if he so determines an

opportunity to make such representations shall have been given.”.

(4)
In subsection (5) at the beginning insert “in the case of an application by either

the prosecution or a defendant”.

(5)
At the end of that subsection insert—

“(5A)
In the case of an application by the defendant the condition is that the

complexity of the trial or length of the trial or the nature of the evidence

that is likely to be called is such that the interests of natural justice require

that serious consideration should be given to the question of whether a

trial should be conducted without a jury.”

(6)
In subsection (7), at the end insert “the defendant (or any of the defendants in

cases where there is more than one defendant).”.’.

Expert panel

Mr Dominic Grieve

David Davis

Mr Crispin Blunt

Mr Greg Knight

Withdrawn  NC15

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) is amended as follows.

(2)
In the headnote at the end insert “but with a panel of experts”.