Fraud Bill [HL]

My Lords, I hope I have been forgiven for my impertinence in coming from Scotland and speaking in this debate, not having spoken earlier, although there might be advantages in coming from a different jurisdiction with quite different rules. I am emboldened to speak by an experience that I had some 30 years ago, when I prosecuted what was then the longest fraud trial in Scotland in 1964 or 1965; indeed, it was the longest trial of any kind in Scotland for more than 30 years—it lasted 18 days. That is a rather different type of trial from the Jubilee Line or others mentioned by Lord Roskill. I looked with great care at Lord Roskill’s report—I have no doubt that many of your Lordships are extremely familiar with it. According to my analysis of the perhaps 28 types of fraud that were specified and analysed in that report, almost all—I think 27 of them—depended on proving that someone had forged a signature, substituted a false document, destroyed documents or something of that kind. Ultimately, the point tends to be rather simple. For that type of reason, I support the principle behind this amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Even complex fraud cases turn on one or two fairly simple points which can be demonstrated with appropriate skills to juries. In Scotland, we are so confident in the capacity of jurors to pick up the point that we do not have opening speeches in jury trials. I have always argued that it is important for the jury to understand the case not at the beginning, but at the end of the trial. The speech can introduce only elements of prejudice. I would maintain that position even in relation to matters of fraud. In my time at the Bar, which now exceeds half a century, there have been enormous advances in the technical aids available. I have seen television used very skilfully, and other technical aids used which enable juries to understand what is going on. I have written about this final point previously. Lawyers who practise in front of courts have an immense amount to learn from television presenters. You can watch a television programme for 30 minutes, an hour, or an hour and a half, and can discover all that you need to know about Enron or any other big fraud case. It is time that lawyers, including judges, learnt the skills that journalists bring to the presentation to the public of complex matters on television. For those general reasons, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for rising to support the principle behind the amendment.