Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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,. [Mr. Hogg.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
(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.
(3) In subsection (2) after jury, insert but with a panel of experts.
(4) In subsection (3) after jury, insert but with a panel of experts.
(5) In subsection (5) at end insert but with a panel of experts.
43A Expert Panel for Fraud Cases
(1) The Lord Chief Justice shall nominate eight experts drawn from
(a) The Royal Institute of Chartered Accountants,
(b) The Society of Actuaries, or
(c) other persons prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor
to determine the facts of fraud cases conducted without a jury by virtue of section 43 of this Act.
(2) The judge shall retire with the experts to assist them but shall not determine any question of fact... [Mr. Grieve.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
Amendment No. 15, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert
or a judge of the Crown Court who shall have been designated by the Lord Chief Justice or by a judge nominated by him to try the case..
Government amendments Nos. 3 to 6.
Mr. Grieve:
This is my last attempt in what has been a long process to tempt the Government to take an
alternative course of action in the Bill. New clause 15 is drafted simply, and it provides a mechanism so that the prosecution can apply for trials to take place without a jury. The Solicitor-General will know that since the matter first arose in 2003 I have suggested that the Government consider the alternative of special juries if they are worried that the burden would be too great for people summoned off the street to serve on a jury panel, and if they fear that those jurors would not be able to cope with a lengthy trial.
I suggested that a panel might be set up, drawn from organisations such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Society of Actuaries and other persons who clearly had a knowledge of financial documents. The panel could be called upon to form special juries when they were necessary in long and complex fraud cases. The scheme would have the added advantage that those who served on such a panel might well have taken early retirement, would have the sagacity, wisdom and time to do the work, and would be willing to do it. The task would be a public service that offered them fulfilment and interest. I never succeeded in selling the idea to the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, which I regret.
The problem that I face with the Bill as it stands is that the title states in rather redolent terms and, I am sure, quite deliberately, Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill, with the consequence that any attempt to introduce in the Bill a special jury is immediately met with the argument that it is out of order because on Second Reading we decided not to have juries.
Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman spoke of selling his idea to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. Has he had any meetings with the Government to discuss the proposals in the spirit of compromise?
Mr. Grieve: Let me briefly recap what has happened since 2003. I shall try not to take too long. An assurance was given in 2003, as the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, that the provisions of section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which could not be implemented without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, would not be brought in, and that the Government would look to bring in further primary legislation and would carry out consultations before they did so.
The right hon. Gentleman may also be aware that there is considerable disagreement between the Opposition and the Government as to whether consultation ever took place. The Governments understanding of the consultation was a one morning-long seminar to which people were invited without appreciating that that was the only formal consultation that would take place. I was unable to attend. My noble Friend Lord Kingsland attended and was not aware when he was there that that was the consultation. Other people also attended, I think.
That was not a productive process. The Government then announced that they would proceed by trying to get the affirmative resolutions on section 43. When they tried to do that, the Lords indicated that it was in breach of the undertakings given in 2003 and that they
would not go along with it. Following that, negotiations took place. I put it on record that the Attorney-General held meetings on two occasions with myself and other hon. Members, and that we had the opportunity to discuss in his chambers in Buckingham Gate the issues surrounding the options, but without the wider consultation that I expected as a result of the assurances given in 2003 by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
I suggested at that stage that one possible way forward was the special jury system. Although there are drawbacks, I would find that an acceptable solution if it met the Governments anxieties. I regret the fact that the Government have never been able to be tempted, so all I can do at this stage of the Bill is to see whether there are any other solutions that might tempt them.
That is what new clause 15 seeks to do. It would provide for a panel of experts drawn from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Society of Actuaries or
other persons prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.
The measures title would be changed to Fraud (Trials without a Jury but with a Panel of Experts) Bill.
There is a difference between a panel of experts and a jury. The panel of experts would have exclusive right to determine the facts. To get round the problem that if it retires without the judge it becomes a jury, I included the concession that the judge should retire with it. I am not sure what the judge will do when he retires with the experts, but he could advise them on the law, which would be practical, and remind them of any salient facts. However, he could not determine any factual matter in the case of a disagreement.
That gives me an opportunity to resurrect, even at the eleventh hour, the principle of not following the route that the Government have chosen. If the Government gave even the smallest positive sign that the alternative that I have suggested would commend itself, we might make some progress rather than reaching the position whereby the Bill does not get through the upper House and may have to be pushed through under the Parliament Act. That is undesirable on a matter about which we should attempt to achieve some consensus.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The new clause might help to solve what appears to be the insoluble problem of public interest immunity applications. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether that was considered in Committee? If another tribunal will not deal with PII, how is it to be tackled?
Mr. Grieve:
We considered the matter in Committee. Indeed, we discussed the problem that would arise with trial by judge alone if various applications were made to the judge on matters of law, which might mean his being told facts that would not otherwise be placed before him. The Governments attitude was fairly dismissive. They claimed that trained judges can put out of their mind what is irrelevant to their determination of matters of fact. The Government are satisfied that that will happen. I do not have that confidence. I profoundly believe that the system whereby judge and jury have separate roles in criminal justice in the Crown court is important. New clause 15
would go some way towards solving the problem, because the judge could still deal with points of law but have no role in determining questions of fact.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I appreciate that this question would be better directed to the Solicitor-General and I shall attempt to do that in due course. However, given that I did not serve on the Committee, I should be grateful for some guidance. How can the measure deal with articles 6 and 12 of the European convention on human rights? When a case goes to Europe, how could the measure deal with the defence argument of, I was addressing a judge when he, with the prosecution, was privy to factual matters and allegations of which I had no knowledge? The Bill would not have a prayer in a European court. How did the Committee consider that?
Mr. Grieve: The matter was discussed in Committee, but the hon. and learned Gentleman would do better to direct his questions to the Solicitor-General. Anxiety was expressed about mixing the role of the judge as guardian of the process with his having to make findings of fact. We went into the process whereby judgments would be given in detail. However, much remained obscure to me. If the Solicitor-General can respond to the matters that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, I should be grateful. We did not consider the minutiae of some of the issues that were likely to arise, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), among others, referred to them.
I do not want to take up more of the Houses time on new clause 15. It is an alternative that, I am sure, contains many flaws, but I have to say that if I were offered the choice between the new clause and the Governments preferred optionand they were the only two options availableI would opt for the new clause. It would preserve public confidence in the idea that the decision of innocence or guilt should be made by an independent group of people and not by a judge. I have always believed that that is one of the most profoundly important aspects of the criminal justice system that we possess today. I do not wish to see it eroded.
Briefly, Government amendment No. 1 is designed to provide that a trial by judge alone can be conducted by
Next Section | Index | Home Page |