Fraud Bill [HL]

Once again, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. However, I do not on this occasion think it meets my argument at all. Time and again in his replies to me today the noble and learned Lord has fallen back and placed great weight on the jury’s analysis of dishonesty. Throughout the Law Commission report there is a very powerful theme which emphasises how dangerous it is to put too much weight on dishonesty alone in this line of offences. In a sense, I am rather encouraged that the noble and learned Lord is putting so much weight on the jury when he appears to be about to remove it from fraud trials. He thinks that dishonesty is a safeguard; but it looks as if, in future, it is not going to be the jury that determines dishonesty, but the judge on his own. This has huge implications for the role of dishonesty in fraud trials. So we need a stronger guarantee in the Bill to protect people in these circumstances. For those reasons, I shall certainly bring this amendment back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.] Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 [Fraud by failing to disclose information]: