Fraud Bill [HL]

My Lords, that is exactly my point. Having said that I do not, with respect, believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, adds anything to the existing powers, my second point is that it does not solve the problem. You do not solve the problem of a small number of serious and complex fraud cases by cutting down the material the prosecution can put forward. This risks not presenting the full case to the jury. Much of the opposition to Section 43 rests on the principle that there is an inalienable right to trial by jury. The Government are committed to retaining jury trial in almost all Crown Court cases. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made an important point about the confidence that certain parts of our community have in juries. I do not disagree with him about that, but they are not, I think, the people we are concerned with in this small number of serious complex fraud cases. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of criminal cases in this country are dealt with, perfectly ably, in a magistrates’ court, either by lay justices or by professional judges without any jury present. I have some difficulty, in this context, in understanding the objection to judge-alone trial. I do not understand why the opponents in this category of case have so little faith in our judiciary. Single judges already make momentous decisions in civil cases; they are quite capable of making decisions about the guilt or innocence of defendants.