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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll