Fraud Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to all your Lordships who have spoken in this debate. I can tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that I recall there being a brass plaque in the second assize court of the old Stafford assizes which commemorated the longest trial in England up to that date. That was 17 days, which slightly beats the record of 18 days to which he referred. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General takes issue with me on a number of points. First, my amendment was set down at the beginning of last week, but on Friday I learnt from him that there was no intention of seeking to proceed with the orders under Section 43. It seems to me that I am entitled to put this amendment forward and to have it debated as it has been. I have delayed the passage of this Bill by one hour in so doing. The second issue that the noble and learned Lord mentioned is that there is nothing new in the amendment. When the Criminal Procedure Rules that are now in place were formulated following the Courts Act 2003, they were not novel. They sought to put together the best practice, so that the best practice would be available for all sorts of Crown trials. In putting forward the amendment, I am seeking to demonstrate best practice in fraud trials. What framework is best suited for complex fraud cases? What is the best framework that we can employ to prevent the length and the expense of fraud trials, which have not been the best part of the criminal justice process over the past few years? There are novel points in the amendment—for example, giving statutory force to the protocol of the Lord Chief Justice. There is a lot to be said for the protocol. It is flexible. There is also a lot to be said for having behind the protocol a steady, firm framework, from which judges who are trying these cases can derive the way in which they propose to manage their cases. There are also references to the way in which a jury operates. Questioning and the ability to retire to consider documents have not been tried, so far as I know, in this country. Electronic presentation of evidence does occur. Oddly, no one has got on to the limitation of prolix cross-examination. That is important and should have statutory backing so that the judge can prevent counsel from going on day after day. I hope that your Lordships appreciate that I am seeking to produce a cost-effective and justice-effective system. I am doing so from experience. I do not say that the amendment is perfect; I do not say that it is all new. But it is to my mind a better way of going about things than abolishing the principle—and it is a principle—that a person should be tried by his peers, whether in a complex fraud case or whatever. The jury principle is fundamental to the justice system of this country and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, it is a system that commands the respect of all members of society. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage. I ask him to think about it before Third Reading and I also ask him to consider the position if he brings forward a fresh Bill. I suggest that there should be a delay to allow the protocol to operate and to see how it works in practice before any primary legislation to abolish juries is brought before us again. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 15 [Commencement and extent]: [Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.] Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]: [Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 not moved.] Schedule 2 [Transitional provisions and savings]: [Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.] Schedule 3 [Repeals and revocations]: [Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]