Fraud Bill [HL]

I very much regret that my absence abroad prevented me attending the meeting to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General referred or, indeed, knowing about it. Nor did I have an opportunity to read his letter until a moment ago. I am interested in the,"““one precise, clear and short count””" that is mentioned in the annex to the letter. Obviously it is good to see one precise clear and short count, but one should not think that that means there will be a precise, clear and short trial. It just means that trials will go on and on and on. That is my first point. My second point is that you can have a situation—I tried to refer to it earlier—whereby, say, eight people are charged in the conspiracy with obtaining personal banking details, another three with dishonestly using such information to effect change of billing address and so on. The prosecution has the task of setting out what the allegation against an individual is—what he is facing. My complaint is that within this type of count it is possible by the end of the trial for the original allegation to have disappeared, but for a person to be convicted on a different basis—that he dishonestly obtained goods and services—an allegation which was not put at the opening of the case against that particular individual. There is, first, the practical problem of how to confine trials like this into some shorter compass and, secondly, the unfairness to a particular accused who can find the ground shifting as the trial goes on.