Jubilee line corruption trial

Last updated

Jubilee Line Corruption Trial
Court Central Criminal Court
Full case nameThe Crown against (most formally Regina versus) Rayment and others (Stephen Rayment, Mark Woodward-Smith, Paul Maw, Paul Fisher, Mark Skinner, Graham Scard and Anthony Wootton)
Started25 June 2003
Decided22 March 2005
Citation(s) HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Report June 2006
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingJudge 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 (Regina 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.

Contents

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]

Dispute

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]

Outcomes

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 due to 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]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Serious Fraud Office (United Kingdom)</span> Department of Government of United Kingdom that investigates and prosecutes complex fraud

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LaRouche criminal trials</span> 1980s United States state and federal fraud trials

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.

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."

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial</span> Coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal

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 involves 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Serious Fraud Office (New Zealand)</span>

The Serious Fraud Office is the public service department of New Zealand charged with detecting, investigating and prosecuting financial crimes, including corruption, of a serious and complex nature.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harrisburg Seven</span> American anti-Vietnam War activists

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of assizes (Belgium)</span> Criminal court in Belgium

The court of assizes is the trial court which tries the most serious crimes in the judicial system of Belgium. It is the highest Belgian court with criminal jurisdiction; as such, it is the only Belgian court that can sentence someone to life imprisonment. The courts of assizes are not permanent courts; a new court of assizes is assembled for each new trial. There is a court of assizes in each of the ten provinces of Belgium, as well as one in the arrondissement of Brussels-Capital which is not part of any province. Further below, an overview is provided of the eleven courts of assizes and their seats. They are the only courts in Belgium for which the provinces are used as territorial subdivisions. They are also the only courts in Belgium that hold jury trials. The jury acts as sole trier of fact, but decides on the penalty together with the judges. The trial by jury of certain crimes is laid down in article 150 of the Belgian Constitution. The Belgian courts of assizes have the same origin as their French namesakes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juries in England and Wales</span> Law of trial by jury in England and Wales

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 general framework and the body of Hong Kong’s criminal laws were in fact imported from the United Kingdom when Hong Kong was first become a Crown colony in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanking. Even nowadays, after the handover and years of development and modification, these laws are still very similar to those in the UK. Just like in Britain, criminal laws in Hong Kong are entailed in different statutory law and common law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perry Mason syndrome</span> Social effect of television portrayals of the legal system

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grand juries in the United States</span> Groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings

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. The grand jury originated under the law of England and spread through colonization to other jurisdictions as part of the common law. Today, however, the United States is one of only two jurisdictions, along with Liberia, that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ann Goddard</span> British barrister and judge

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.

References

  1. 1 2 3 HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (June 2006). "Review of the investigation and criminal proceedings relating to the jubilee line case" (PDF). HMCPSI. Retrieved 11 August 2023.
  2. 1 2 Davies, Carol (25 March 2005). "Marathon trial cost juror her wedding and a job". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 25 February 2017.
  3. 1 2 "Jubilee line £60m fraud trial collapses". The Independent. 23 March 2005. Retrieved 12 August 2023.
  4. Clark, Phil; Clark 2005-03-23T09:29:00+00:00, Phil Clark Phil. "QSs freed after Jubilee Line Extension fraud case collapses". Building. Retrieved 12 August 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  5. 1 2 Leigh, David (23 March 2005). "Jury protest forces fraud trial collapse after 2 years". Guardian newspapers. Retrieved 25 February 2015.
  6. "Two found guilty of fraud after UK's longest criminal trial". BBC News. 16 May 2017. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  7. Lusher, Adam (27 March 2005). "No regrets: The juror accused of precipitating the collapse of the £60m Jubilee Line fraud trial by going on strike'". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 26 February 2017.