ABSTRACT
Just over thirty years ago, the Fraud Trials Committee (Roskill Committee) recommended that complex fraud trials should be tried by a Fraud Trials Tribunal instead of a jury. Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which attempted to remove the jury in serious and complex fraud trials, has since been passed and repealed without being brought into force. In 2014, Lord Chief Justice Thomas highlighted the ‘very serious problems’ that still exist in prosecuting such crime and called for the issue to be considered again. This chapter seeks to reignite the debate about the composition of the tribunal of fact in complex fraud cases. It is presented in three parts. The first part briefly considers how to establish the parameters for determining the types of cases that would be decided without a jury. In doing so, it considers the difficulty in defining the term ‘complex fraud trials’. The second part of this chapter addresses the question of whether the jury should be removed in such cases, and if it is removed, what possible alternative tribunals might try such cases. It is argued that in order for such a major change to be introduced there must be clear justifications, along with evidence substantiating the criticisms surrounding trial by jury in such cases. The third and final part of this chapter considers whether there are any alternative measures that might alleviate some of the concerns relating to fraud trials, without resorting to the abolition of the jury.
