Fraud laws: Time for a change?

Fraud experts are torn over whether proposed changes to the UK judicial system would boost chances of securing convictions for fraud.

Yesterday the government announced plans to abolish trial by jury for cases of serious fraud where it is believed the detail of such cases may be lost on the average man or woman on the street.

However, some experts claim while the current system is clearly flawed a 'better the devil you know' approach could be the safest strategy, with tweaks to the current system favoured over wholesale change.

Peter Dorrington, head of fraud solutions at SAS, told silicon.com the idea is sound but the consequences and precedent are too much of a concern to proceed.

"As somebody who is vehemently opposed to fraud and fraudsters I should be in favour of anything that leads to a speedier conclusion of fraud cases but I am worried about what this will mean," said Dorrington.

"There is no easy answer to this but I'm not convinced there is a compelling enough argument to abolish the system of trial by jury. I'm a great believer that the justice system should be visible and this sounds like it could just be a further erosion of our civil liberties."

Jim Gee, CEO of the NHS counter fraud and security management service, told silicon.com his organisation is no stranger to the kind of serious fraud cases which would be affected by the proposed change in the system - but he's not convinced it is a step worth taking.

The NHS is currently in dispute with seven generic drug manufacturers who are being sued for £152m but Gee believes the details of the case, if collected efficiently can be expressed to a jury.

"There needs to be a continuing obligation on the part of those investigating these cases to do everything they can to ensure the investigation is conducted to the highest standards," said Gee. "If this is done then I still believe it is possible to present all the evidence to a jury in a way they can understand."

Dorrington from SAS concurs. "Trial by jury still has its place," he said. "It is not beyond the man on the street to understand the details of fraud cases."

Dorrington said what should be considered is a change to the process of legal wrangling prior to a trial taking place. He said "certain material facts, such as what has happened and what has been lost" should be agreed before even involving a jury in whether it was taken or gained deceptively or outside of the law.

He doesn't believe a jury of expert witnesses would help. "They would probably only extend fraud trials," he said.