UK: Fraud Trials: Plea Negotiation- Plea Bargaining

Last Updated: 5 August 2008

Reproduced with kind permission of The Barrister ,Trinity Term Issue

Article by Monty Raphael, joint head of Fraud and Regulatory Department

Any reform, particularly one as drastic as introducing negotiated justice must, I believe, be accompanied by an assurance that it would not diminish the public's trust in the fair and evenhanded dispensation of criminal justice

The decision to put the Old Bailey's cases online reveals that until the mid-19th century judges and juries at that Court could sometimes get through three whole trials in a day. True, few, if any, accused were represented, but still, such efficiency must inspire those in Whitehall anxious to see a return to such judicial efficiency.

While the inconvenient intervention of representation by counsel, and the necessary complexities of modern fraud cases make this rate of progress a little ambitious, there can still be discerned in the Attorney General's recent consultation paper, a wish perhaps that this was not the case.

The plain fact is that full-blown fraud trials, with all their guarantees of due process, are no longer seen as affordable. No-one would argue against early dialogue between prosecution and defence, but only if both parties to such dialogue are equally matched in experience and expertise, and both know the strength of the Crown's case and, indeed, such weaknesses as are known only to the Crown. The preservation of the burden of proof, and the presumption of innocence both impose fundamental constraints on consensual or collaborative justice. That we are in danger of forgetting this truism is due to the failure of successive Governments to implement coherent policies for policing white collar crime. Indeed, this omission is true across the whole criminal calendar. Instead, we have had decades of Royal Commissions, Law Commissions, Working Groups, and One-Man Enquiries, all recommending piecemeal remedies, of which some have been adopted and others ignored, often for reasons of financial economy.

We have been left with a plethora of prosecution agencies, interpreting policies in their own individual ways while dealing with a problem, the increasing threat from large scale fraud, inefficiently and with horrendous losses to the Revenue and the legitimate economy. We have grafted on ideas from the inquisitorial systems of our European neighbours and borrowed others from civil jurisprudence, while all the while diminishing investigative resources and failing to send a clear signal to those contemplating the commission of these serious crimes. Whether one is caught, and if caught prosecuted at all, has become even more of a lottery than is any way inevitable in a free society governed by the rule of law.

Any reform, particularly one as drastic as introducing negotiated justice must, I believe, be accompanied by an assurance that it would not diminish the public's trust in the fair and even-handed dispensation of criminal justice. It must be part of a coherent policy which makes transparent why some white collar crime, even when discovered, is met with civil or administrative penalties, while others are not. None are victimless crimes, so why are some visited with naming and shaming, others by financial penalties, and the remainder by criminal sanctions. Why, even after the latest Government Fraud Review, would the reporting of fraud only be encouraged rather than be made mandatory. Why will only some of our 43 police forces be adequately resourced to investigate fraud.

Is it enough to concentrate on the comparatively small number of fraud cases that are brought before the Courts and then either put the blame for the acquittals of some on the ignorance or credulity of juries, or on the absence of a formal plea bargaining regime.

If the answer is that some reform is better than no reform, should we not be astute in assuring that any measures introduced can be seen to be fair rather than just efficient in terms of saving time and money. The Consultation Paper records the extraordinary statistic that in the USA 98% of all criminal cases are resolved by some form of negotiating plea. At the same time, the Chairman of the Fraud Review Working Group is quoted as saying that the proposed UK reform is but a "distant cousin" of the US system. If this is meant to reassure, it does not. It may be enough to echo the words of the Lord Justice of Appeal in a recent extradition case, when he commented unfavourably on negotiations with a prospective extraditee as follows: "We make no secret of the fact that we view with a degree of distaste the way in which the American authorities are alleged to have approached the plea bargain negotiations. Viewed from the perspective of an English Court, the notion that a prosecutor may seek to induce a plea of guilty on the basis that substantial benefits will be withdrawn if one is not forthcoming is an anathema".

Indeed Stephen Hockman QC is reported as conceding: "In America, defendants sometimes are coerced into pleading guilty because of the huge sentences that are available to Judges on a guilty verdict, which makes it too dangerous to contemplate a full trial". Any threat of the deprivation of liberty is huge, but particularly so when an innocent accused is terrified or coerced into pleading guilty with a promise, perhaps, of no custodial sentence. Only the most complacent would believe that our criminal justice system has been, or will become, so perfect that there will be no significant number of innocent persons who plead guilty for a variety of reasons, coercion being not the least of them.

Mr. Hockman goes on to say: "The proposals for England and Wales have the advantage that they do not require parliamentary legislation and can be introduced relatively easily under existing law". Far from applauding this shortcut, should we not be alarmed by yet another example of parliamentary debate being denied to a fundamental change in our criminal justice policy, particularly when the safeguards which the committee and the Attorney General accept are necessary may not, in reality, be put in place.

There is an acknowledgment in both the Committee's recommendations and the Consultation Paper that anyone entering upon a plea negotiation must receive legal advice. The question is whether this advice will be adequate. I would suggest that the basic requirements of such advice can be summarised as follows:-

Access to lawyers who can advise:

a. On the procedure to which the suspect/accused is already subject.

b. The nature and possible outcomes of plea negotiation.

c. The consequence of such outcomes:

  1. penal, including loss of liberty, loss of reputation, financial penalty, disqualification, compensation orders, confiscation orders, community penalties and costs

  2. civil liability – exposure to third party claims – the effect of a conviction by negotiated plea in any subsequent class action

  3. the loss of employment or employment prospects

  4. possible deportation or difficulties in obtaining a visa to enter certain countries

  5. the effect of the plea on investigations in another jurisdiction and the possible heightened exposure to an application for extradition to a third country

  6. debarrment from office or ability to bid for certain contracts (also a concern for corporations).

Ideally the corporate or individual would receive all the necessary advice from a one stop firm with the addition of counsel. Corporations may be able to do just that, because they have the means to instruct law firms with these skills if they so choose. Individuals, on the other hand, must rely on access funded by (a) themselves – if their assets are adequate and not the subject of restraint orders which cannot ordinarily be varied to provide for such expenditure, or (b) by insurance through Director and Officer policies which may or may not afford sufficient cover but will often be refused because the insured admits delinquency which is an excluded risk, (c) through the generosity and goodwill of a corporate employer, whose sentiment is very likely blunted by either itself being the victim of the fraud or where the corporation and officer/ employee are alleged accomplices will nonetheless be hesitant to assist lest such largesse be criticised by shareholders and/or the agency with which the corporation is co-operating. A salutary reminder of this problem is provided by an ongoing case in the United States involving the former partners of KPMG. In the U.S. –v- Jeffrey Stein the trial Judge dismissed tax fraud charges against a number of former partners of the accountancy practice because he found that they had been deprived of their constitutional rights as a result of the prosecution, so it was alleged, pressuring the firm to stop funding the accused ex partners if they, themselves, wanted to arrange a satisfactory outcome for the firm as a whole. This case is currently under appeal.

There is surely something of a paradox where corporations which are almost always well funded, and which are anyway both immortal and immune to imprisonment, should be best able financially to take care of themselves; whereas, loyal and long serving officers or employees can find themselves exposed to the vagaries and uncertainties of a criminal justice system made more oppressive by the prospect of enforced entry into plea negotiations without adequate professional assistance.

d. Funding may be provided by third party well-wishers. In practice these usually turn out to be few in number, and the suspect's previously dependable close friends who, if their emotions and wallets are still engaged, would prefer to provide for the suspect's dependents than enrich a bunch of lawyers.

e. The Public Purse. Little comfort may perhaps be derived from the Attorney General's assurance that legal aid will be available because, firstly, it may not be available to cover all the advice required, secondly, if it is, it is certainly not going to provide adequate remuneration sufficient to attract the sort of expertise and experience that is necessary to provide adequate support to a party to plea negotiations. Here again, one must recall the recent confiscation proceedings which collapsed because the legally aided accused could find no senior member of the bar who was willing to undertake the work at the rate offered by the public purse.

Readers of the Barrister will only be too aware that the number of law firms and members of the Bar continuing to offer publicly funded advice and representation in serious and complex fraud matters has significantly diminished, and is likely to diminish further as the full impact of the Carter Review becomes ever more apparent.

It is hypocritical to imply that the American system of plea bargaining is not an example to be followed, while introducing many of its features and exposing a suspect to many of the imperfections of their system. 98% pleas of guilty in a legal system, where the less well off (the majority) have to use a publicly funded service which, while not universally bad, is acknowledged to significantly fail to provide basic safeguards, and where the system is coercive in the extreme is not a relative to claim even as a distant cousin.

Being able to engage with the prosecution in white collar cases is a laudable reform, but only if it is not implemented as a cheap and inadequate bureaucratic convenience which provides few, if any, safeguards for all, save the unrestrained rich and well funded corporate client.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Peters & Peters, or the Fraud Advisory Panel).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.



To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions