Fraud Bill [HL]

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, speaks. I have one or two random points to make in regard to jury trial and the present situation. First, it would be totally unrealistic if we did not recognise that there was a perception among the minorities that one obtained a better category of justice through trial by judge and jury than by judge alone. There is a basis to that perception. Some may have an inbuilt, albeit perhaps very rare, bias against the defence. The professional judge can become case-hardened as a result of hearing the same defence over and over again, whereas the jury has not heard it before or has come to it with a greater understanding. Certainly, the jury does not run the risk of missing a good case because of the very small incidence in which it has care. I think this perception is particularly strong among foreigners who come to this country and among the minorities who are convinced that they stand a much better chance of a sympathetic hearing before a jury than before a judge alone. Another matter to which I wish to draw attention is the suggestion about plea bargaining. It is a long time since I was personally involved as chairman of the Bar Council, when I discussed this matter with the then Lord Chief Justice and the fact that the greatest degree to which a judge would permit a discussion was to say, ““Win, lose or draw, the sentence is likely to be X””, and that anything else ran the risk of putting pressure on the accused to accept what could so easily be put in front of him to speed up the process. It is highly dangerous—this has happened so frequently in other jurisdictions—to put too much weight on the sentence and the degree to which it can be reduced in order to speed up the process. It results in sloppy preparation and over-indictment, and it places the accused in a highly difficult position.