Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Robert Marshall-Andrews (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 25 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill.


Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill

I do not want to embark on an amendment that will not make the cut, but it is obviously desirable that the judge who decides that a trial should be judge only should be the one to hear it. I can tell my hon. and learned Friend that a great deal of trouble would be caused if judges, and especially High Court judges, were to decide that a trial should be judge only and then left it to be heard by a Crown court judge who was not involved in the decision. Moreover, if the case changes and a defendant decides to plead guilty after previously pleading not guilty—and if that plea had been part of the original judge’s contemplation when making the judge-only ruling—another judge will have a great deal of difficulty in unravelling the original judge’s thinking. If the House of Lords can find a form of words that accommodates my hon. and learned Friend’s natural wish not to trammel the discretion of the Lord Chief Justice, but which nonetheless provides for the exceptional circumstances that he has described, will he look on it with a certain amount of kindness, if not approbation?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c1635 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Fraud Juries Jubilee line Judgements Prosecutions Trials
Legislation
Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk