The Court of Appeal today ruled that a judge was wrong to halt a multimillion-pound fraud trial because the defendants claimed they could not get legal representation owing to cuts to legal aid.
The Court overturned Judge Anthony Leonard’s decision, earlier this month, to stay a prosecution initiated by the Financial Conduct Authority at Southwark Crown Court after the prime minister’s brother, Alexander Cameron QC, successfully argued on behalf of the defendants that the case should be halted because Ministry of Justice (MoJ) reforms to legal aid meant they could not find barristers of sufficient competence to represent them.
The trial involves the alleged mis-selling of land to members of the public, otherwise known as “land banking”, and Sir Brian Leveson said today that it is “clearly an extremely important but complex case”.
It has been classified by the Legal Aid Authority (LAA) as a Very High Cost Case (VHCC) but, in reforms announced in September 2013, the MoJ cut fees for such cases by 30% for barristers and solicitors.
The Court allowed the FCA’s appeal and ordered that the trial, in which Scott Crawley, Dale Walker, Daniel Forsyth, Aaron Petrou and Brendan Daley are charged with conspiracy to defraud, “be resumed in the Crown Court at Southwark”. Had the appeal failed, they would have been acquitted.
Sir Brian Leveson said that the ruling involved errors of law or principle and was not reasonable in the sense that a number of the conclusions reached were not reasonably open to the judge based on the evidence. He said that it was “wrong as a matter of principle” to conclude that the state had violated the process of the court or jeopardised the integrity of the criminal justice system.
He added: “We are not saying that there could not come a time when it may be appropriate to order that this indictment be stayed: that time, however, remains very much in the future and problems about representation will have to have developed considerably before such an exceptional order could be justified.
“It is of fundamental importance that the MoJ led by the Lord Chancellor and the professions continue to try to resolve the impasse that presently stands in the way of the delivery of justice in the most complex of cases: this will require effort by both sides. The maintenance of a criminal justice system of which we can be proud depends on a sensible resolution of the issues that have arisen.”
In a statement, the FCA said: “The FCA is committed to pursuing criminal action in appropriate cases and is pleased that this case can now proceed towards trial.”
The defendants are charged with offences of conspiracy to defraud, possessing criminal property and offences contrary to s.19 and 23(1), and s.177(4)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Crown alleges that between 2008 and 2011 the defendants were involved in a land banking scheme using, variously, three limited companies which allegedly acquired, or purported to acquire, sites which were then divided into a number of sub-plots.
Judge Leonard said during the trial: “It is alleged that those sub-plots were then aggressively marketed to members of the public – often vulnerable members of the public – who were persuaded to buy based on false representations as to the nature of the company selling the sub-plots, the professionals they employed, as to planning permission, potential purchasers of the sites for onward development and their previous success.”
R v Crawley and ors Court of Appeal (Sir Brian Leveson, Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Treacy) 21 May 2014
Sean Larkin Q.C. and Ben Jaffey for the Applicant, the Financial Conduct Authority
Alexander Cameron Q.C. and Lee Adams for the respondents
Anthony Peto Q.C. and Peter Woodall for the Lord Chancellor Intervener
The Court of Appeal today ruled that a judge was wrong to halt a multimillion-pound fraud trial because the defendants claimed they could not get legal representation owing to cuts to legal aid. The Court overturned Judge Anthony Leonard’s decision, earlier this month, to stay a prosecution initiated by the Financial Conduct Authority at Southwark Crown Court after the prime minister’s brother, Alexander Cameron QC, successfully argued on behalf of the defendants that the case should be halted because Ministry of Justice (MoJ) reforms to legal aid meant they could not find barristers of sufficient competence to represent them. The trial involves the alleged mis-selling of land to members of the public, otherwise known as “land banking”, and Sir Brian Leveson said today that it is “clearly an extremely important but complex case”. It has been classified by the Legal Aid Authority (LAA) as a Very High Cost Case (VHCC) but, in reforms announced in September 2013, the MoJ cut fees for such cases by 30% for barristers and solicitors. The Court allowed the FCA’s appeal and ordered that the trial, in which Scott Crawley, Dale Walker, Daniel Forsyth, Aaron Petrou and Brendan Daley are charged with conspiracy to defraud, “be resumed in the Crown Court at Southwark”. Had the appeal failed, they would have been acquitted. Sir Brian Leveson said that the ruling involved errors of law or principle and was not reasonable in the sense that a number of the conclusions reached were not reasonably open to the judge based on the evidence. He said that it was “wrong as a matter of principle” to conclude that the state had violated the process of the court or jeopardised the integrity of the criminal justice system. He added: “We are not saying that there could not come a time when it may be appropriate to order that this indictment be stayed: that time, however, remains very much in the future and problems about representation will have to have developed considerably before such an exceptional order could be justified. “It is of fundamental importance that the MoJ led by the Lord Chancellor and the professions continue to try to resolve the impasse that presently stands in the way of the delivery of justice in the most complex of cases: this will require effort by both sides. The maintenance of a criminal justice system of which we can be proud depends on a sensible resolution of the issues that have arisen.” In a statement, the FCA said: “The FCA is committed to pursuing criminal action in appropriate cases and is pleased that this case can now proceed towards trial.” The defendants are charged with offences of conspiracy to defraud, possessing criminal property and offences contrary to s.19 and 23(1), and s.177(4)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Crown alleges that between 2008 and 2011 the defendants were involved in a land banking scheme using, variously, three limited companies which allegedly acquired, or purported to acquire, sites which were then divided into a number of sub-plots. Judge Leonard said during the trial: “It is alleged that those sub-plots were then aggressively marketed to members of the public – often vulnerable members of the public – who were persuaded to buy based on false representations as to the nature of the company selling the sub-plots, the professionals they employed, as to planning permission, potential purchasers of the sites for onward development and their previous success.” R v Crawley and ors Court of Appeal (Sir Brian Leveson, Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Treacy) 21 May 2014Sean Larkin Q.C. and Ben Jaffey for the Applicant, the Financial Conduct AuthorityAlexander Cameron Q.C. and Lee Adams for the respondentsAnthony Peto Q.C. and Peter Woodall for the Lord Chancellor Intervener
