header-logo header-logo

Righting the Libor injustice

19 September 2025 / David Stern , James Fletcher
Issue: 8131 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Fraud
printer mail-detail
230038
David Stern & James Fletcher on the Supreme Court decision to quash the convictions of former traders
  • The Supreme Court has quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that the trial judges had misdirected juries that trading-motivated submissions were not honest or genuine assessments of the Libor and Euribor rates.
  • The court criticised the Serious Fraud Office for the vagueness of its case, and the Court of Appeal for advancing a new basis for setting the rate.
  • Calls for a public inquiry have followed, and the judgment could be seen as a defence of the role of jury trials, particularly in complex fraud matters.

On 23 July 2025, the UK Supreme Court unanimously quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo in R v Hayes; R v Palombo [2025] UKSC 29, ruling that the trial judges had misdirected juries by treating as a matter of law that trading-motivated submissions were automatically not honest or genuine assessments of the Libor and Euribor rates, thus removing a factual issue and critical legal defence from jury consideration.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll