Jubilee Line Corruption Trial | |
---|---|
Court | Central Criminal Court |
Full case name | R v Rayment and others (Stephen Rayment, Mark Woodward-Smith, Paul Maw, Paul Fisher, Mark Skinner, Graham Scard and Anthony Wootton) |
Started | 25 June 2003 |
Decided | 22 March 2005 |
Citation | HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Report June 2006 |
Court membership | |
Judge sitting | Judge Ann Goddard QC |
Case opinions | |
The Jubilee Line case, which had been ongoing since 2003, was terminated in 2005 after the prosecution chose not to oppose the discharge of the jury, leading to public concern and media attention; subsequently, the Attorney General initiated a review to examine the case's circumstances and suggest measures to prevent similar outcomes. | |
Keywords | |
The Jubilee line corruption trial (R v Rayment and others; defendants were S. Rayment, M. Woodward-Smith, P. Maw, P. Fisher, M. Skinner, G. Scard and A. Wootton [1] ) was a trial at the Old Bailey in London, England.
It began on 25 June 2003, lasted 21 months, and collapsed on 22 March 2005 upon the prosecution announcing its decision not to oppose a defence application to discharge the jury. [2]
The trial centered around accusations that companies had manipulated the bidding process, exchanged confidential information, and engaged in corrupt practices to win contracts for various aspects of the Jubilee Line Extension from London Underground Limited (LUL) in the 1990s. [3]
The two primary defendants managed a quantity surveying firm called RWS. [4] The prosecution alleged that they had influenced specific LUL personnel to access confidential financial data from LUL. This information was purportedly used fraudulently for a client contractor during the initial tendering process on contracts worth tens of millions of pounds [3] and later for multiple client contractors making claims against LUL for contractual changes. One defendant admitted partial guilt for fraudulent actions during the tendering process, while all other defendants denied involvement. [1]
The trial sparked concerns about the readiness of juries, which are selected randomly from the working-age population, to participate in lengthy, full-day trials. [5]
The trial faced several issues, such as two jurors being discharged for personal reasons. Another juror had been assured she could get married and go on a honeymoon in June 2005, but it turned out the trial would still be ongoing at that time. Additionally, two of the defendants became sick during the lengthy trial. [5]
The total expense for the police investigation, legal proceedings, and the entire trial, which also included expenses for the jurors and legal aid, amounted to approximately £60 million. When the trial fell apart, it led to an examination of the "investigation and legal procedures" by the Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service. The results of this review were published in June 2006. [1]
It has been described as one of the longest jury trials to have occurred in the UK, although a subsequent case in Scotland in 2017 sat for longer. [6]
The "striking" juror[ clarification needed ] who ultimately brought about the collapse remarked that the trial caused him loss of earnings that threatened his ability to pay Oxford University fees for a course set to start in October 2005. [7] The juror set to marry lost both her wedding date and her job. [2]
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.
A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Most trial juries are "petit juries", and usually consist of twelve people. A larger jury known as a grand jury has been used to investigate potential crimes and render indictments against suspects.
In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the criminal prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is a non-ministerial government department of the Government of the United Kingdom that investigates and prosecutes serious or complex fraud and corruption in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The SFO is accountable to the Attorney General for England and Wales, and was established by the Criminal Justice Act 1987, an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The LaRouche criminal trials in the mid-1980s stemmed from federal and state investigations into the activities of American political activist Lyndon LaRouche and members of his movement. They were charged with conspiring to commit fraud and soliciting loans they had no intention of repaying. LaRouche and his supporters disputed the charges, claiming the trials were politically motivated.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Subsequent jurisprudence has resulted in the extension of Batson to civil cases and cases where jurors are excluded on the basis of sex.
Star routes is a term used in connection with the United States postal service and the contracting of mail delivery services. The term is defunct as of 1970, but still is occasionally used to refer to Highway Contract Routes (HCRs), which replaced the Star routes. The term is mostly used in connection with a series of scandals in the 1870s involving bribes to postal officials.
Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty or, in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"The idiot defense" is a satirical term for a legal strategy where a defendant claims innocence by virtue of having been ignorant of facts of which the defendant would normally be expected to be aware. Other terms used for this tactic include "dumb CEO defense", "dummy defense", "ostrich defense", "Ken Lay defense", and "Sergeant Schultz defense". The first known instance of the idiot defense was by John Henry Stafford, a lawyer in Jackson, Tennessee who was also known as Yankee John. He used it in the defense of Marlin Heady, a moonshiner. The charges were all, allegedly, dropped.
Jury selection is the selection of the people who will serve on a jury during a jury trial. The group of potential jurors is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. Jury lists are compiled from voter registrations and driver license or ID renewals. From those lists, summonses are mailed. A panel of jurors is then assigned to a courtroom.
In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.
The KPMG tax shelter fraud scandal involved illegal U.S. tax shelters by KPMG that were exposed beginning in 2003. In early 2005, the United States member firm of KPMG International, KPMG LLP, was accused by the United States Department of Justice of fraud in marketing abusive tax shelters.
Jury duty or jury service is a service as a juror in a legal proceeding. Different countries have different approaches to juries: variations include the kinds of cases tried before a jury, how many jurors hear a trial, and whether the lay person is involved in a single trial or holds a paid job similar to a judge, but without legal training.
The Harrisburg Seven were a group of religious anti-war activists, led by Philip Berrigan, charged in 1971 in a failed conspiracy case in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, located in Harrisburg. The seven were Phillip Berrigan, Elizabeth McAlister, Rev. Neil McLaughlin, Rev. Joseph Wenderoth, Eqbal Ahmad, Anthony Scoblick, and Mary Cain Scoblick.
Scientific jury selection, often abbreviated SJS, is the use of social science techniques and expertise to choose favorable juries during a criminal or civil trial. Scientific jury selection is used during the jury selection phase of the trial, during which lawyers have the opportunity to question jurors. It almost always entails an expert's assistance in the attorney's use of peremptory challenges—the right to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason—during jury selection. The practice is currently unique to the American legal system.
In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.
The Perry Mason syndrome is the manner in which the television crime drama Perry Mason (1957–1966) may have affected perceptions of the United States legal system among defendants and jurors.
Grand juries in the United States are groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings, chiefly investigating potential criminal conduct and determining whether criminal charges should be brought.
Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminal law and procedure. By a 5–4 margin it upheld the mail fraud conviction of an Illinois man and resolved a conflict among the appellate circuits over which test to use to determine if a defendant was entitled to a jury instruction allowing conviction on a lesser included charge. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority; Antonin Scalia for the dissent.
Ann Felicity Goddard was a British barrister and judge. For many years, she was the only woman judge at the Old Bailey criminal court in London.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)