header-logo header-logo

19 September 2025 / David Stern , James Fletcher
Issue: 8131 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Righting the Libor injustice

230038
David Stern & James Fletcher on the Supreme Court decision to quash the convictions of former traders
  • The Supreme Court has quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that the trial judges had misdirected juries that trading-motivated submissions were not honest or genuine assessments of the Libor and Euribor rates.
  • The court criticised the Serious Fraud Office for the vagueness of its case, and the Court of Appeal for advancing a new basis for setting the rate.
  • Calls for a public inquiry have followed, and the judgment could be seen as a defence of the role of jury trials, particularly in complex fraud matters.

On 23 July 2025, the UK Supreme Court unanimously quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo in R v Hayes; R v Palombo [2025] UKSC 29, ruling that the trial judges had misdirected juries by treating as a matter of law that trading-motivated submissions were automatically not honest or genuine assessments of the Libor and Euribor rates,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll