Trial judges, if not the government, believe juries can cope with serious fraud offences. Michael Zander QC reports
English judges who conduct serious fraud trials want trial by jury for these cases to continue, according to research published in the October issue of the Criminal Law Review (“Judicial Perspectives on the Conduct of Serious Fraud Trials, Crim LR 751–68).
The author is Robert F Julian, a justice of the New York State Supreme Court. He was given permission by Lord Justice Thomas, presiding judge of England and Wales, to interview all the judges who had tried a serious fraud case prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office in a recent randomly selected year. To preserve the anonymity of the judges the year is not given.
Thomas LJ proposed some additional names. Eleven judges were identified. One had died. One declined. Nine agreed to be interviewed.
Justice Julian summarised his research thus:
“Permeating every interview was the strong belief expressed by each of the judges that trial by jury was entirely appropriate in serious fraud cases and that trial by judge should not replace trial by jury. The
