Judicial system needs ‘shake-up' after trader convictions, says Sir David Davis
The former UBS trader and the ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank were said to have manipulated the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor).
Speaking at a press conference following the Supreme Court judgment, Sir David described the two men as 'scapegoats for the sins that led to the financial crisis'.
Former traders Carlo Palombo and Tom Hayes had their convictions quashed by five Supreme Court justices (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
He said: 'The implications are far-reaching and of course have been devastating for those caught up in it.
'There were several other people convicted of rate rigging, dozens of others who were either prosecuted, acquitted or not prosecuted. Their lives were upended too.
'This scapegoating exercise happened as a result of collusion between the banks and government agencies, including the SFO (Serious Fraud Office) and FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and we're not done with that.
'This scandal also highlights the need for urgent reform within our justice system on a range of issues – the handling of expert witnesses right through to the rigidity of the appeals system.'
In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said judges' misdirection to the juries had led to the men's wrongful convictions.
He said: 'The history of these two cases raises concerns about the effectiveness of the criminal appeal system in England and Wales in confronting legal error.'
Sir David said the Supreme Court justices 'did not unpack' why the appeal system fell into error in these cases.
He said: 'I think the judicial system needs a shake-up, and this is the latest demonstrator of it, and we will be returning to it in the future.'
Mr Hayes said he believes the trials of the two men became caught up in the politics of the financial crisis, adding that there was a 'big desire from institutions and politicians, acting in their own interest largely', for traders to go to prison.
Asked about his thoughts on what role juries play in cases like his and Mr Palombo's, he said it was a 'dangerous idea' for complicated fraud and financial cases to be heard only by a judge.
The former trader added: 'The jury is the last defensive barrier that every citizen in this country has between them and a wrongful conviction.
'And are juries perfect? No, they're not. Do they make mistakes? Yes, they do. And you know, it's the best of a whole load of options, none of which is perfect.'
Ben Rose, part of Mr Palombo's legal team, said Wednesday's Supreme Court judgment is 'likely to offer a route' by which others who have been convicted in similar circumstances 'can right the wrong that has been done to them'.
He also said there was a 'fundamental error' in the way the case was prosecuted and that the role of the jury was 'overridden and usurped' by the judges.
The lawyer added: 'That should not happen in a country that abides by the rule of law.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court lets Trump remove consumer product safety commissioners
WASHINGTON, July 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let Republican President Donald Trump on Wednesday remove three Democratic members of the government's top consumer product safety watchdog, boosting his power over federal agencies set up by Congress to be independent from presidential control. Granting a Justice Department request, the justices lifted Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox's order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Democratic former President Joe Biden while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds. Maddox had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in firing Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. The Supreme Court in a brief unsigned order indicated that the Trump administration was likely to show that the president is authorized by the U.S. Constitution to remove Consumer Product Safety Commission members. It was the latest in a series of legal victories for Trump in which the Supreme Court halted lower court rulings that had blocked his actions. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal members dissented on Wednesday. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by fellow liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the court had again used its "emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress." The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created by Congress in 1972 and tasked with reducing the risk to consumers of injury or death from defective or harmful products. The agency sets safety standards, conducts product-safety investigations and issues recalls of hazardous products. To establish the five-member commission's independence from direct White House control, Congress authorized the president to fire commissioners only for neglect of duty or malfeasance, not at will. Nicolas Sansone, an attorney for the fired commissioners, vowed to continue fighting for their reinstatement. "The Supreme Court's intervention deprives the public of important voices on the Consumer Product Safety Commission and sows substantial legal uncertainty," Sansone said. After being notified in May that Trump had fired them, Boyle, Hoehn-Saric and Trumka sued, arguing that their removals were without basis and that Trump had exceeded his authority. The staggered, seven-year terms of the commissioners were not set to expire until October 2025, 2027 and 2028, respectively, according to court filings. The Justice Department argued that the law shielding commissioners from being fired except for good cause violates the president's removal authority under the Constitution's provision delineating executive power. Maddox, a Biden appointee, sided with the commissioners in a June 13 ruling and ordered their reinstatement. The judge upheld the commission's removal protections under a 1935 Supreme Court precedent in a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States that preserved similar protections for U.S. Federal Trade Commission members. Kagan wrote that Wednesday's decision "all but overturned" the Humphrey's Executor precedent. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 1 denied the administration's request to halt Maddox's reinstatement order. This prompted the Justice Department's emergency filing to the Supreme Court. The commissioners in their Supreme Court filing had urged the justices to reject the administration's request. They said that allowing the dismissals would deprive the American public of critical consumer safety expertise and oversight. In May, the Supreme Court in a similar case allowed Trump to remove two Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board - despite job protections for these posts - while litigation challenging those removals proceeded. The court in that ruling said the Constitution gives the president wide latitude to fire government officials who wield executive power on his behalf and that the administration "is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power." The court on Wednesday said that the Consumer Product Safety Commission "exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board." In her dissent, Kagan criticized the conservative majority for using the court's emergency docket - an abbreviated mode of adjudication involving shorter-than-usual written briefs and no oral argument - to "override Congress's decisions about how to structure administrative agencies so that they can perform their prescribed duties." "By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress's choice of agency bipartisanship and independence," Kagan wrote. "By means of such actions, this court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of government to another," Kagan added. The Supreme Court has sided with Trump in a series of cases on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January, including clearing the way for his administration to pursue mass government job cuts, gut the Department of Education and implement some of his hardline immigration policies.
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
A stitch-up to sate anger at bankers
As establishment stitch-ups go, little beats the case of Tom Hayes: the former UBS and Citigroup trader who has just won a ten-year fight to overturn his conviction for rigging Libor. At the centre of it was the London interbank offered rate — a since-junked benchmark for pricing $400 trillion of contracts. It was crucial to the financial system. But, despite that, it was set by an archaic process where submissions from 16 banks established the rate. Overseeing it all was not a legal authority but a trade body, the now-defunct British Bankers' Association. Instead of reforming the process, banks made the most of it. Egged on by their bosses, traders pushed for submitters to put in a rate most favourable to their trading books. Worse, once the 2008 financial crisis hit, it's clear that the Bank of England knew what was going on. Banks were using a practice called 'lowballing' to avoid reporting a higher cost of borrowing than rivals, which may have implied they were in trouble. As it cut interest rates to boost the economy, lowballing suited the Bank of England, too — even if its then-deputy governor Paul Tucker insisted it didn't encourage it. Still, in a nice bit of establishment doublethink, the authorities were also on the hunt for something else: banking scalps to sate public anger over the financial crisis. Into that void stepped David Green, the former Serious Fraud Office chief since knighted for his services to wrecking other people's lives. What better than nailing a few traders for rigging Libor? Green's record as a prosecutor includes a Welsh mining case that a judge found 'was from the outset doomed to fail'; the Olympus farrago that was 'inevitably doomed as a matter of law'; and the action against former Tesco execs that was thrown out by a judge after eight weeks, saying: 'The prosecution's case is so weak that it should not be left for a jury's consideration.' Yet, he brought a case that banged up Hayes: a man the SFO dubbed the Libor 'ringmaster', convicted in August 2015 of conspiracy to defraud. He was sentenced to a ludicrous 14 years in jail, cut to 11 on appeal. He served five and a half, during which he lost his career, home and marriage. His was the first of nine convictions — none of which involved senior bankers. They included Carlo Palombo, an ex-Barclays trader sentenced to four years for manipulating Euribor, who's also just had his conviction quashed by the Supreme Court. Green has always maintained that it is the prosecutor's role to seek justice, with what happens after down to the jury. And, in Hayes's case, the Supreme Court points the blame at the trial judge, Mr Justice Cooke, for misdirecting the jury. It found there was 'ample evidence on which a jury, properly directed, could have found the appellant guilty'. The problem? Hayes did not get a fair hearing. He'd 'denied that he had attempted or conspired to induce submitters to put forward rates which did not represent their genuine opinion'. But 'the effect of the judge's directions was to remove consideration of that defence from the jury'. Instead, Cooke went out of his way to instruct jurors that 'if any consideration had been given to trading advantage, the rate submitted could not as a matter of law be a genuine or honest assessment of the bank's borrowing rate'. It was 'that misdirection' that 'undermined the fairness of the trial'. Ask Green if he still feels he was right to bring the case and he hides behind the paragraphs quoted above, simply advising to 'read' them. But he ducks an invitation to comment on something else: the Supreme Court's criticism of the SFO for its role in the indictment. 'Regrettably', it said, 'the indictment did not give sufficient particulars to enable the defence and the trial judge to know clearly and precisely the nature of the prosecution's case. Had it done so, the problems which have beset this case might have been avoided.' Exactly. Green brought his case against a backdrop of political and public anger over the financial crisis. And Hayes was a convenient fall guy. Tellingly, too, even when his conviction looked increasingly unsafe, Green gloried in his successful prosecution. Hayes had various attempts to appeal his case dismissed, even after the US courts threw out a similar action against him and others accused of rigging Libor. Notably, the Supreme Court begins its verdict by saying the case raises 'concerns about the effectiveness of the criminal appeal system … in confronting legal error'. Yet, contrast that with Green's gloating in March last year when Hayes lost his case at the Court of Appeal. Having been advised by The Times in advance that he may be asked for comment, Green sent back a sarcastic 241-word email saying he had received 'not a single request for a quote', asking, 'what ever has happened?'. He added: 'If you can spare a moment in your busy search for the truth, do let me know your answers to this puzzle'. He signed off: 'Feel free to quote me'. Strangely, now that the Supreme Court has overturned Hayes's conviction, there have been no quotes from Green. Surely that's not because he prefers rough justice? A reminder that US tech stocks go down as well as up. Who from? The Informa boss, Lord Carter of Barnes, who was so excited about his deal last year to take a 57 per cent stake in the Nasdaq-listed Tech Target that his press release zinged with random words in bold: 'Priority Engine', 'Demand Generation', 'Industry Dive'. The final one is most bang on. Having injected Informa's markets insight wing and $350 million cash into Tech Target, Carter completed the deal in December — only to see its shares plunge 56 per cent this year alone. The result? A £484 million writedown on Tech Target goodwill. The rest of Informa is doing fine. But this US bit is well off target.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court lets Trump fire three consumer product safety regulators
The US supreme court let Donald Trump on Wednesday remove three Democratic members of the government's top consumer product safety watchdog, boosting his power over federal agencies set up by Congress to be independent from presidential control. Granting a justice department request, the justices lifted Maryland-based US district judge Matthew Maddox's order that had blocked Trump from dismissing three Consumer Product Safety Commission members appointed by Democratic former president Joe Biden while a legal challenge to their removal proceeds. Maddox had ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in firing commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created by Congress in 1972 and tasked with reducing the risk to consumers of injury or death from defective or harmful products. The agency sets safety standards, conducts product-safety investigations and issues recalls of hazardous products. To establish the five-member commission's independence from direct White House control, Congress authorized the president to fire commissioners only for neglect of duty or malfeasance, not at will. After being notified in May that Trump had fired them, Boyle, Hoehn-Saric and Trumka sued, arguing that their removals were without basis and that Trump had exceeded his authority. The staggered, seven-year terms of the commissioners were not set to expire until October 2025, 2027 and 2028, respectively, according to court filings. The justice department argued that the law shielding commissioners from being fired except for good cause violates the president's removal authority under the US constitution's provision delineating executive power. Maddox, a Biden appointee, sided with the commissioners in a 2 July ruling and ordered their reinstatement. The judge upheld the commission's removal protections under a nine-decade-old supreme court precedent that preserved similar protections for US Federal Trade Commission members. The Richmond, Virginia-based US fourth circuit court of appeals on 1 July denied the administration's request to halt Maddox's reinstatement order. This prompted the justice department's emergency filing to the supreme court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority. The commissioners in their supreme court filing urged the justices to reject the administration's request. They said that allowing the dismissals would deprive the American public of critical consumer safety expertise and oversight. In May, the supreme court in a similar case allowed Trump to remove two Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) – despite job protections for these posts – while a legal challenge to those removals proceeded. The court in that ruling said the constitution gives the president wide latitude to fire government officials who wield executive power on his behalf and that the administration 'is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power'. The supreme court has sided with Trump in a series of cases on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January, including clearing the way for his administration to pursue mass government job cuts, gut the Department of Education and implement some of his hardline immigration policies.
