THE future of jury trial for complex frauds was thrown into doubt last night after the longest and most costly case in legal history dramatically collapsed at a cost of £60 million to the taxpayer.
The Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, QC, immediately ordered an inquiry into the Old Bailey trial, which opened almost two years ago. Another such case “must never be allowed to happen again,” he said.
Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, also called for reforms to avoid the “intolerable” burden that complex trials created. They should last no longer than three months — or six months in exceptional cases.
The trial involved six men who were accused of corruption over the building of the Jubilee Line extension to the London Tube. It was alleged that inside information had been passed to help companies to secure lucrative construction contracts. No money was lost.
The prosecution nonetheless embarked on what critics say was an unmanageable, and ultimately record-breaking, case to prove a corrupt commercial advantage. Further cases had been scheduled to follow.
The entire affair became reportable only last night with the collapse of the first trial.
All six men were formally cleared by Judge Ann Goddard, QC. One of them, Mark Skinner, a quantity surveyor, said he was furious that the case had ever been brought.
“Although I should now feel relief and happiness, I feel only anger — anger at a prosecution which has destroyed my business and tortured my family for over seven years . . . a prosecution that has caused significant damage to my health, anger that no one in a position to do so stepped in and ended what to all reasonable observers had become a farce long ago.”
The case began in 1997 with the investigation and arrest of the men who worked on the Jubilee Line, some for RWS Project Services, a project-management company in the construction business.
The trial itself, which lurched from problem to problem, finally folded after sickness, jury problems, lengthy delays and disruption dogged proceedings to such an extent that a fair hearing became impossible. Anthony Upward, QC, said that the prosecution’s decision to ask for the jury to be discharged was taken with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
During the 272-day trial, just over half of the time was spent actually hearing evidence.
One defendant had been giving evidence since last October but because of repeated delays had been in the witness box for only just over five days.
Legal assistants spent 12 days just looking for documents while a juror was removed from the panel after he was suspected of involvement in a benefit fraud.
The trial continued despite a series of applications to have the charges thrown out. However, it finally collapsed after more problems with the jury.
During the trial one woman juror wrote to the judge asking to be dismissed, saying that she was on medication for stress.The judge agreed to dismiss another juror who said he had difficulty surviving on the expenses he was being paid. Before that a woman was dismissed when she fell pregnant.
Judge Ann Goddard, QC, who is presiding over what is expected to be her last trial, ruled that in the face of the delays it could be damaging to Mr Skinner’s health to continue. The prosecution opted not to proceed with a retrial and two follow-on trials were also dropped.
Five of the defendants were on legal aid and the estimated cost of the defence was £14 million. Richard Collins, executive director for planning and policy at the Legal Services Commission, said that the defence costs were in proportion to other costs involved in the case.
Yesterday Lord Woolf, Britain’s most senior judge, said: “It is essential that the current length of trials is brought back to an acceptable duration.”
Lord Goldsmith, who ordered Stephen Wooler, the inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service to carry out an inquiry, said of the case: “The decision will cause great public disquiet as it causes me considerable disquiet. Most serious allegations have not in the end been brought to a final conclusion.”
He emphasised that the allegations had not been proved and that they had been denied by the defendants. “It is important to learn what lessons we can.” The move was welcomed by the Bar and Criminal Bar Association which favour curbing the length of fraud trials but want to retain the jury system.
However, there are fears that the trial will be used as a weapon by some who would like to scrap juries in fraud cases and implement a provision for trial by judge alone or with assessors.
The six men on trial were Stephen Rayment, 45, a quantity surveyor; Mark Woodward-Smith, 44, a quantity surveyor; Mr Skinner, 50, a quantity surveyor; Paul Fisher, 52, a surveyor; Anthony Wooton, 50, a contracts manager; and Graham Scard, 50, a chartered surveyor. All except Mr Woodward-Smith had been employed as contractors by London Underground for the Jubilee Line Extension Project.
Mr Rayment and Mr Woodward-Smith each denied two counts of conspiracy to defraud and one count of conspiracy to corruptly give gifts or considerations to London Underground contractors or staff. Mr Skinner, Mr Wootton and Mr Scard each denied one count of conspiracy to defraud and one count of conspiracy to corruptly accept any gift or consideration while employed by London Underground. Mr Fisher denied one charge of conspiracy to defraud.
PRICE OF JUSTICE
1995-96 Maxwell trial, £30m costs, no convictions
