Fraud Bill [HL]

My Lords, I have received an oral assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that the Government will proceed to implement Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 only by primary legislation. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will confirm that on the Floor of the House. On that basis, we have not tabled an amendment to remove Section 43 from the 2003 Act. Had we done so, its text would have been very close to that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and justified for the reasons that the noble Lord has so comprehensively given. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General’s assurance is consistent with the undertaking given to another place by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, at Third Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. He said that if Section 43 remained on the face of the Bill, full consultation would take place with the opposition parties, followed by a proposal which would form part of subsequent primary legislation. I understand that the Government intend to bring forward in another place a single-issue Bill on jury trial in complex fraud cases as early as parliamentary time will allow. I hope that, before they take that decision, at least the decision about timing, they will reflect on a number of considerations. First, we have spent a great deal of time in your Lordships’ House debating a new definition of fraud. One of the reasons why this review by the Law Commission has been undertaken is that the old definition was deeply unsatisfactory. It was over-complex and, in addition, not sufficiently comprehensive. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to give an opportunity for the new definition to take effect? It may be that the greater simplicity of the definition of ““fraud”” will be more easily understood by juries and will, therefore, shorten trials—which is the main purpose for which the noble and learned Lord has expressed concern about the continued existence of juries in complex fraud cases. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said so effectively, let us have some more time to see what effect the protocol of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will have; because that too may have a dramatic influence on the length of complex fraud trials. The evidence before us so far does not establish that the existence of juries in complex fraud cases lengthens those cases. I hope that, before the Government will consider bringing legislation before another place, the noble and learned Lord will engage in an examination of at least some of the major complex fraud cases that have taken place in the past two or three years, to try and determine exactly what role the jury plays. We know that the noble and learned Lord does not consider the problem to be the make-up of the jury—because he has expressed his view that having a jury of experts rather than laymen would contribute nothing to the solution. It is not the composition of the jury but the fact of the jury which is his problem. May I suggest that he looks at, say, a dozen cases that have taken place over the past two years, to establish what contribution the fact of the jury has made to the length of the case? We would all find that evidence enormously valuable.