header-logo header-logo

19 September 2025 / David Stern , James Fletcher
Issue: 8131 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Righting the Libor injustice

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll