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
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
How the courts became the biggest roadblock to Trump's plans
A federal judge's ruling last week to maintain a sweeping nationwide ban on Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order highlights the dizzying legal battle that has defined the administration's opening months, with courts issuing dozens of such sweeping orders to systematically halt abrasive elements of the president's agenda. US district judge Leo Sorokin in Boston rejected Trump administration arguments to narrow his nationwide injunction, a court order that prohibits the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone across the nation, and not just the people who filed the legal challenge. His decision represents just one case in a broader pattern of judicial resistance to Trump administration actions. Courts have issued an estimated 35 nationwide injunctions against various Trump executive orders and policy changes from his inauguration until the supreme court intervened on 27 June, according to a Guardian analysis of court records and Congressional Research Service data. There's no standard legal definition for a nationwide injunction, so it is not possible to provide a single definitive count, but the roughly 35 orders during Trump's second term have halted a broad range of policies, from the president's attempt to end birthright citizenship to restrictions on federal funding for diversity programs and changes to refugee resettlement. In June, the supreme court significantly limited courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which fundamentally reshaped how opponents can challenge executive overreach and dismantled what some legal experts viewed as the most potent weapon against sweeping presidential policies. Without nationwide injunctions, challengers largely have to now pursue slower class-action lawsuits or file multiple suits across jurisdictions to achieve the same blocking effect, although the supreme court left the possibility for exceptions in some cases like Sorokin's ruling, which found that nationwide relief was necessary to protect Americans from harm. 'President Trump's illegal abuses of power have created widespread harm for Americans across the country including farmers, students, working families and retirees that demanded a national response,' said Donald Sherman, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 'The supreme court's decision has certainly made it more complex to challenge President Trump's lawless executive actions and put an unnecessary strain on judicial resources, but legal advocates and concerned citizens will not be deterred from holding the administration accountable in court.' During Trump's first presidency, federal courts issued at least 64 nationwide injunctions against his administration, compared with 12 under Barack Obama's eight-year presidency and just six under George W Bush's two terms. The White House has praised the supreme court's June order, saying 'low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions' to deliberately cut down Trump's policy agenda. Those injunctions were issued by courts in mostly Democratic-leaning states and jurisdictions, including Washington DC, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Texas, Massachusetts, New York and others, according to a Guardian analysis. Harvard Law Review research from Trump's first term found that 92.2% of nationwide injunctions came from Democratic-appointed judges, while 100% of similar injunctions against Biden came from Republican-appointed judges. The Guardian analysis of the 35 nationwide injunctions issued during the first six months of the Trump administration demonstrates the types of policies that had been blocked by courts using this tool. Immigration enforcement and citizenship changes have prompted at least eight major nationwide injunctions, including in the landmark birthright citizenship case, cases targeting refugee program defunding and deportation accelerations. Federal funding policies have generated a wave of litigation, with at least six injunctions stopping various funding freezes and restrictions, stemming from suits filed by groups including the National Council of Nonprofits targeting funding freezes, and on targeting National Institutes of Health grants by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Policies on diversity, equity and inclusion and civil rights face numerous legal challenges and have resulted in nationwide injunctions in at least five cases, including a suit by the National Association of Diversity Officers fighting restrictions under Trump's executive orders. At least two cases stemming from military service requirements stopped by nationwide injunctions fall into the same category, while federal agency restructuring has prompted suits from multiple state governments and federal employee unions and ended with nationwide injunctions. Some injunctions focused on executive overreach and legal targeting, while additional injunctions stopped emergency tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and restrictions on law firms that previously opposed Trump policies. 'Since the moment President Trump took office, low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions to kneecap the agenda on which he was overwhelmingly elected,' the White House said in a statement after the supreme court's ruling in June. 'In fact, of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against President Trump's executive actions in his second term, 35 of them came from just five far-left jurisdictions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and the District of Columbia.' The Guardian has not been able to identify 40 nationwide injunctions independently. The White House and the Department of Justice have not responded to requests for comment on which injunctions they have on their list. The justice department has reportedly faced difficulties defending the volume of Trump's executive orders, with lawyers struggling to answer judicial questions and correct the record in court, prompting the justice department to seek rapid transfers of attorneys to the division handling Trump policy defenses. The administration is also believed to be testing traditional presidential deference, the longstanding practice where courts generally defer to executive authority for national security and foreign affairs as it defends aggressive immigration, trade and economic policies, while taking the unprecedented step of suing federal judges who issue blocking orders. Legal challenges have also targeted more specific policies, prompting nationwide injunctions in cases targeting restrictions on gender-affirming care in federal prisons, changes to passport gender markers and federal employment terminations affecting thousands of workers. Following the supreme court decision in Trump v Casa in June, courts are now prohibited from issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. But there is an exception, which comes when a judge decides it is the only way to fully protect the people bringing the lawsuit, like in the case of the birthright citizenship challenge. The White House said: 'Now, the Trump Administration can promptly proceed with critical action to save the country – like ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping taxpayers from funding transgender surgeries, and much more.' But some legal experts aren't so sure on the long-term impact of the supreme court's restrictions on nationwide injunctions just yet. 'I think it remains to be seen how the practical consequences of the supreme court's decision shake out,' said Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former Obama-appointed US attorney. 'Several of the justices suggested that class actions would provide a mechanism to block lawless executive orders and prevent irreparable harm, but, of course, class actions can be cumbersome and slower than a simple temporary restraining order. 'We will need to see how lower courts address the supreme court's exception where necessary,' McQuade said. For those in the crosshairs of Trump's policies – like undocumented immigrants facing deportation and non-profits losing federal funding – the harm could be measured in weeks or months. The supreme court's decision hasn't eliminated legal challenges to presidential power, but it has fundamentally altered their speed and scope.
Times
9 hours ago
- Times
How drivers were sold a car finance compensation fantasy
Britain has narrowly avoided a costly car finance compensation free-for-all after a landmark court ruling derailed chances of a payout for millions of drivers. Claims lawyers had been bombarding consumers with adverts suggesting they may have been entitled to thousands of pounds in a scandal over hidden commission on car finance deals. The scandal had been expected to rival the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, which cost banks more than £38 billion. It was thought that nearly 15 million drivers could be entitled to payouts worth as much as £44 billion in total — although Friday's Supreme Court ruling means the numbers are set to be far smaller. Questions have now been raised over whether those using car finance really lost out and how many of them deserve compensation at all. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had tried to intervene ahead of the ruling — arguing that a colossal compensation bill for the industry would damage the economy and consumers. The Supreme Court ruled on three cases where consumers bought cars on finance and argued that they had been treated unfairly because they had not been told about commission involved in their deals — which ranged from £183 to £1,651. The court rejected two of the three cases, but upheld a complaint by Marcus Johnson, a factory worker from south Wales — because in his case the £1,651 commission in his loan was 55 per cent of the fee (including interest) on his loan over five years. 'The fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship between Mr Johnson and the lender was unfair,' the court's judgment said. It leaves the door open to claims for compensation on deals that contained large amounts of commission, or where the commission model influenced what they paid. How much would be needed for a deal to be unfair is something that is likely to be decided by the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which said it would confirm if it would introduce a redress scheme before stock markets open on Monday morning. The FCA had been investigating finance deals that had used a model called discretionary commission, which incentivised dealers to give customers a worse interest rate on their loan. However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal last October opened the door to compensation claims by millions of motorists who had bought cars on finance, regardless of the commission model. Lenders appealed to the Supreme Court over the ruling. About nine in ten cars are bought on finance and £39.7 billion was borrowed on more than two million cars in the year to May, according to the Finance and Leasing Association, a trade body. The Court of Appeal had ruled in October that car dealers had a duty to make clear the nature and value of any commission paid to them to ensure that borrowers could give 'informed consent' before agreeing to a deal. Reeves was among those concerned about a claims free-for-all, with the Treasury reportedly drawing up contingency plans to shield lenders from having to pay out billions of pounds in compensation. The Treasury attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case, arguing that a ruling had 'the potential to adversely affect the United Kingdom's reputation as a place to do business, with a consequent impact on economic growth'. In the meantime complaints about car loans to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), a body that solves disputes, have risen from 4,130 in the first three months of 2023-24 to 37,230 in the last three months of 2024-25. Most of these have been brought by claims companies and no-win, no-fee law firms that file complaints on behalf of consumers in return for up to 30 per cent of any compensation. These companies have swamped radio, social media and television with adverts that tell consumers they could be owed thousands of pounds. On Thursday the FCA said it had required 224 adverts from claims firms about car finance to either be taken down or changed. There had been highly speculative figures advertised for how much consumers could get back, it said, including compensation figures that did not make clear they covered multiple car loans and misleading claims that refunds were guaranteed. It said companies had been signing up consumers without their consent after they clicked on adverts. Philip Salter, a former FCA regulator now at the consultancy Sicsic Advisory, said: 'I haven't liked a lot of the claims company advertising. You've had a lot of companies arguing that time is running out, but the clock hasn't even started. It's been a bit of an unseemly scramble.' • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture If there is to be compensation for consumers, it is expected that the FCA will announce a free redress scheme where lenders will contact those eligible, meaning consumers should not need to use a claims company. Gary Greenwood from the investment bank Shore Capital said: 'It's one of those things where if you go by the letter of the law of the previous Court of Appeal judgment, you're almost coming to the conclusion that commission is bad. But the problem is that if you look at the reality of what had happened, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of consumer harm that's gone on. 'So any sort of redress has got to come down to: has there been any consumer harm here, or are people just trying to claim money back on a technicality?' Greenwood said. Charlie Nunn, the chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, which runs Britain's biggest car finance lender, Black Horse, has denied the scandal was on the same level as PPI. 'Some 80 per cent of people need finance to buy a new car, and a large number of second-hand car buyers do as well,' he told The Times in January. 'We need a well-functioning motor finance industry that supports consumers.' The National Franchised Dealers Association, a trade body, told the Supreme Court that 'nobody goes to a car dealer with a reasonable expectation that it is acting without self-interest in relation to any of the products it sells'. The Supreme Court's judgment could have been the difference between lenders facing a compensation bill of £11 billion — for complaints about a specific form of commission — and £29 billion, according to Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets, an investment bank. It could also have led to compensation claims about the sale of other financial products such as insurance where commission was involved but not properly disclosed. Consumers in turn could have had to foot the bill. Stuart Masson, the editor of the advice website The Car Expert UK, said that if lenders have to pay compensation to millions of people, car finance could get more expensive in the future as the industry tries to 'claw back' that money. 'That's not money they're going to find down the back of the sofa,' he told the BBC. 'They're going to have to get that back from increasing the costs of future lending, which won't just be on car finance. It could be on credit cards, it could be on personal loans, it could be on mortgages.' In January Reeves told bankers at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: 'There is nothing pro-consumer about making it harder for people to buy an affordable car for their family.' Before the courts widened the scope of possible mis-selling, the FCA had been investigating a specific model of commission called discretionary commission. This is where the cut that lenders paid dealers was linked to the interest rate consumers were charged, incentivising dealers to charge borrowers more. This model was used in about 35 per cent of car finance deals, according to the FCA, before it banned the practice in January 2021. The FCA said consumers could have paid about £1,100 more in interest over a four-year £10,000 car finance deal because of this commission model — which is being used as the basis for many of the estimates around possible compensation. Salter, who worked on the ban when he was at the FCA, said: 'That previous Court of Appeal ruling surprised me. I think everyone knows that if they're buying a car the salesman's getting commission, don't they? But discretionary commission never felt right to me.' The FCA began its investigation in January last year on whether consumers had been properly told about the link between their repayments and the commission. The investigation was kicked off by two rulings by the ombudsman against Lloyds and Barclays last year, which ordered the banks to refund two consumers more than £1,000 each. The FCA is expected to set out its next steps, including whether there will be a redress scheme, within six weeks. Any scheme would be free and easy for consumers to use, it said, while the FOS is also free for consumers to appeal to. Rob Lilley-Jones from the consumer group Which? said: 'It's vital that finance firms are held accountable for mis-selling and if a large number of motorists are eligible for compensation consumers are likely to be bombarded with ads from claims firms offering to take on their case. 'Affected customers should be careful when enlisting the services of claims management companies as the wrong choice could lead to their case being poorly handled, losing a significant portion of the compensation in legal fees — or both.' Coby Benson from the law firm Bott & Co, which helped win the ombudsman's case against Lloyds, said the experience from PPI was that consumers could sometimes recover more money by going to court than through a redress scheme. He said: 'We would support a proactive redress scheme if it fairly compensated consumers. But we have doubts over the effective implementation of a scheme, because our data shows that about half of clients have a different address now to that which the lender had from the time of the agreement.'
The Independent
10 hours ago
- The Independent
DeSantis set a Florida record for executions. It's driving a national increase
In the final moments of a life defined by violence, 60-year-old Edward Zakrzewski thanked the people of Florida for killing him "in the most cold, calculated, clean, humane, efficient way possible," breathing deeply as a lethal drug cocktail coursed through his veins. With his last breath, strapped to a gurney inside a state prison's death chamber, Zakrzewski paid what Florida had deemed was his debt to society and became the 27th person put to death in the U.S. so far this year, the highest number in a decade. Under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida has executed nine people in 2025, more than than any other state, and set a new state record, with DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Across the country, more people have been put to death in the first seven months of this year than in all of 2024. Florida's increase is helping put the U.S. on track to surpass 2015's total of 28 executions. And the number of executions is expected to keep climbing. Nine more people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Florida drives a national increase in executions After the Supreme Court lifted its ban on capital punishment in the '70s, executions steadily increased, peaking in 1999 at 98 deaths. Since then, they had been dropping — in part due to legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and declining public support for capital punishment, which has prompted a majority of states to either pause or abolish it altogether. The ratcheting up after this yearslong decline comes as Republican President Donald Trump has urged prosecutors to aggressively seek the death penalty and as some GOP-controlled state legislatures have pushed to expand the category of crimes punishable by death and the methods used to carry out executions. John Blume, director of the Cornell Death Penalty Project, says the uptick in executions doesn't appear to be linked to a change in public support for the death penalty or an increase in the rate of death sentences, but is rather a function of the discretion of state governors. 'The most cynical view would be: It seems to matter to the president, so it matters to them,' Blume said of the governors. 'The only appropriate punishment' In response to questions from The Associated Press, a spokesperson for DeSantis pointed to statements the governor made at a press conference in May, saying he takes capital cases 'very seriously.' 'There are some crimes that are just so horrific, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty,' DeSantis said, adding: 'these are the worst of the worst.' Julie Andrew expressed relief after witnessing the April execution of the man who killed her sister in the Florida Keys in 2000. 'It's done,' she said. 'My heart felt lighter and I can breathe again.' The governor's office did not respond to questions about why the governor is increasing the pace of executions now and whether Trump's policies are playing a role. Deciding who lives and who dies Little is publicly known about how the governor decides whose death warrant to sign and when, a process critics have called 'secretive' and 'arbitrary.' According to the Florida Department of Corrections, there are 266 people currently on death row, including two men in their 80s, both of whom have been awaiting their court-ordered fate for more than 40 years. Speaking at the press conference in May, DeSantis said it's his 'obligation' to oversee executions, which he hopes provide 'some closure' to victims' families. 'Any time we go forward, I'm convinced that not only was the verdict correct, but that this punishment is absolutely appropriate under the circumstances,' DeSantis said. US ranks alongside Iran and Saudi Arabia for executions For years, the U.S. has ranked alongside Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt as among the countries carrying out the highest number of confirmed executions. China is thought to execute more of its citizens than any other nation, although the exact totals are considered a state secret, according to the non-profit Death Penalty Information Center. Robin Maher, the center's executive director, says elected officials in the U.S. have long used the death penalty as a 'political tool,' adding it's 'a way of embellishing their own tough-on-crime credentials.' Florida executions vary year to year In 2024, DeSantis signed one death warrant. From 2020-2022, Florida didn't carry out a single execution. In 2023, DeSantis oversaw six — the highest number during his time in office until this year. 2023 was also the year the governor challenged Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. There are a number of reasons why the rate of executions may vary from one administration to the next, said Mark Schlakman, an attorney and Florida State University professor who advised then-governor Lawton Chiles on the death penalty. The availability of staff resources, the tempo of lengthy legal appeals, and court challenges against the death penalty itself can all play a role, Schlakman said, as well as a governor's 'sensibilities.' 'The one person who can stop this' One execution after another, opponents of the death penalty hold vigils in the Florida capitol, outside the governor's mansion, and near the state prison that houses the death chamber, as people of faith across the state pray for mercy, healing and justice. Suzanne Printy, a volunteer with the group Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has hand-delivered thousands of petitions to DeSantis' office, but says they seem to have no effect. Recently, DeSantis signed death warrants for two more men scheduled to die later this month. Still, Printy keeps praying. 'He's the one person who can stop this,' she said. ___
