In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was criticised for its vague case and flawed expert evidence, while the Court of Appeal’s ‘cheapest rate theory’ was dismissed as a ‘blind alley’.
Stern and Fletcher, defence counsel in related trials, argue that the convictions were scapegoating tactics post-financial crisis, with no actual victims presented. They call for a public inquiry into broader justice failings and warn against proposals to remove jury trials in complex fraud cases.
The judgment is hailed as a vital reaffirmation of the jury’s role and a cautionary tale about conflating law with fact-finding.
RELATED ARTICLES
