Fraud Bill [HL]

I hope that I shall not weary the Committee by responding to that. There are two points. First, we do not consider that the concept of conspiracy to defraud is too uncertain. I believe that was what the noble Lord was suggesting in his earlier remarks. It is defined. The elements of the offence are clearly set out in the case law, including in Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I refer to four elements. First, the accused agreed with at least one other to embark upon a course of conduct. Secondly, at the time the agreement was formed the accused intended to act in accordance with the agreement. Thirdly, the course of conduct which the conspirators agreed and intended to embark upon deprived the pleaded victims of something which was theirs or of something to which they would or might be entitled but for the fraud, or such interests were put at risk; and, fourthly, the accused knew or believed that he had no right to put those interests at risk. The ingredients are there. It is possible to draft a precise and short count in the course of a particular trial,   notwithstanding the Lord Chief Justice’s protocol, and notwithstanding case management which the Government very strongly support, so that the nature of offences are well defined before the case—something which the prosecution would welcome as much as the defence. In those circumstances I hope that the particular problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, refers will not arise. I suggest that that is not a consequence of retaining conspiracy to defraud; it is a consequence of the fact that at the moment we do not manage long trials well enough.