Jury on trial
Lord Roskill heads the Fraud Trials L./Committee, briefed (in resonant legal English) 'to consider what changes in ex- isting law and procedure would be desirable to secure the just, expeditious and economical disposal of such proceedings'. Notable in his strong team is Lord Benson, that formidable accountant who for so many years was Lord Richardson's right- hand adviser at the Bank of England — sometimes, indeed, the Governor's right arm. The Committee has now asked for evidence, from the City and the Temple, from individuals and institutions. It wants evidence, too, from the public at large. Par- ticularly, it would like to hear from those who, as jurymen, have had to sit through the long fraud trials and finally try to make up their minds. Not, of course, to intrude on the confessional secrets of the jury-box — but if the system is not working well, maybe the jury knows why? The lawyers and accountants, naturally, have ideas of their own. Some will seek to revive the old `special jury', whose members were qualified by their business experience to understand what this sort of trial might be about. There is talk, too, of specially train- ed judges, or of judges sitting with accoun- tants as assessors. The radicals ask whether such cases should be tried by juries at all or, at least, whether the defendent might have the option of going for trial before a judge or a special tribunal. Written evidence by September, please, because Lord Roskill means to send in his report by that time next year, and, all being well, a parliamentary timetable will follow closely — for Lord Roskill's inquiry has the heaviest political weight behind it. Any sensible Conservative government has a special fear of the minefields of financial scandal, and this one wants a mine-detector in good time, before it must go to the polls.
Previous page
