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'.
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 Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump is making plans to avoid an RBG situation on the Supreme Court, his next picks could be even more right-wing
Donald Trump's team is reportedly eyeing several extremely conservative judges who could serve as potential Supreme Court picks, should the president get the chance to replace one of the aging justices. Among the names being circulated are Andrew Oldham and James Ho, two conservative judges on the right-wing Fifth Circuit Appeals Court, Amal Thapar, a judge on the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court and a previous contender for the Supreme Court, and Neomi Rao, a judge on the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court. While there are no vacancies on the Supreme Court currently, Justices Clarence Thomas, 77, and Samuel Alito, 75, could potentially retire in the coming years, having both served on the court for several decades. 'We are looking for people in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late [Antonin Scalia],' a White House official familiar with the situation told Time magazine. The official said it was 'premature' to say the White House was preparing for a vacancy. No justices on the court have signaled they are preparing to retire soon. But whenever the opportunity arrives, the White House will have a panel of judges for the president to choose from – an attempt to make the process smoother than Justice Brett Kavanaugh's contentious Senate confirmation hearing. It would also likely make for a quick advancement to the Senate, allowing Trump to add yet another conservative ally to the court regardless of timing. That is similar to how he nominated Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 after former justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in the final months of his presidency. Liberals were forced to watch Republicans prevent Barack Obama from filling a vacant seat in 2016 and then, in 2020, Bader Ginsburg's death just two months before a presidential election resulted in yet another rightward shift for the court. Oldham, a judge on the conservative Fifth Circuit Appellate Court, previously clerked for Alito and served as general counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott. He has a history of issuing controversial opinions that have been contested and reversed at the Supreme Court. In one of the more well-known cases, Oldham wrote the appellate court opinion that upheld a controversial Texas law that would have allowed the state to regulate censorship on social media platforms. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed it. He also authored a concurring opinion in the Biden administration ghost gun case, striking down the administration's attempts to regulate them and claiming it violated 'gunsmithing' – the craft of building and modifying firearms. The Supreme Court reversed that decision, too. Oldham is likely to accelerate the president's agenda, having already used fringe legal theories to issue opinions that align with Trump's desires. Also on the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court is Ho, who, in addition to having previously clerked for Thomas, also has a history of issuing controversial opinions. Many of Ho's opinions have upheld theories that allow for restricting immigration in the U.S. – one of the president's main objectives. He recently criticized lower court judges for not allowing the president to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants who have been accused of being gang members. Thapar, who serves as a judge on the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court, has shown conservative viewpoints in his opinions, such as saying Roe v. Wade was 'wrong.' He also advocated for law schools to teach more 'originalism' – or interpreting the Constitution as it was written, often associated with conservative legal theories – and told donors to withhold donations to schools unless they show a 'commitment to intellectual diversity.' Another potential option is Rao, a judge on the D.C. Appeals Court. Rao has received attention for previously authoring pieces that critiqued a woman who accused someone of sexual assault and affirmative action. Notably, Rao ruled in favor of the Trump administration after it barred an Associated Press journalist from accessing the White House and other press coverage areas, thereby undoing a lower court ruling. Thapar was reportedly on Trump's shortlist of Supreme Court picks in 2018 when former justice Anthony Kennedy retired. However, Trump ultimately went with Kavanaugh. The White House official told Time magazine that Trump will make the final decisions on who to put before the Senate when the time comes to nominate a replacement.
Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Maxwell tells Trump: Free me and I'll tell all to Congress
Ghislaine Maxwell has said she will testify freely to Congress if Donald Trump frees her from jail. Lawyers for Maxwell, 63, agreed that she would appear before the House Oversight Committee, as long as she could see what questions they planned to ask her about her links to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, in advance. She also asked that she receive legal immunity for any future convictions. Her lawyer requested that Maxwell's questioning take place after the Supreme Court rules on her appeal for her 2021 sex trafficking conviction. Alternatively, her lawyer said, she would speak 'freely and openly' to Congress right now if the president grants her clemency. Maxwell was last week subpoenaed to answer questions before Congress about her late boyfriend, for whom she was convicted of sex trafficking underage girls, meaning she would have been forced to appear in the coming months, anyway. 'Our initial reaction was that Ms Maxwell would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and decline to testify at this time,' David Oscar Markus, her lawyer, said in a letter to James Comer, the committee's Republican chairman ,which was shared with The Telegraph. He added: 'After further reflection, we would like to find a way to cooperate with Congress if a fair and safe path forward can be established.' Mr Markus wrote that his client 'cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity'. He said that to 'prepare adequately for any congressional deposition – and to ensure accuracy and fairness – we would require the committee's questions in advance'. His letter continues: 'In the alternative, if Ms Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing – and eager – to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, DC, She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning.' Earlier this week, Mr Markus wrote to the Supreme Court urging it to look at Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking charges, arguing that a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein dating from 2008 prevented her subsequent prosecution. 'Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve nearly every federal case. They routinely include promises that extend to others – co-conspirators, family members, potential witnesses,' he wrote to the court. 'If those promises mean different things in different parts of the country, then trust in our system collapses.' The case of Epstein, who was found dead in his New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, has continued to reverberate after his death. It has presented a challenge for Mr Trump, who was elected to a second term with a promise to release any outstanding evidence from the case. Many of his supporters believed senior Democrats and other powerful people would be revealed to be at the heart of a child sex trafficking ring. When the Department of Justice announced earlier this month there was no client list and the FBI was recommending there be no further release of material, there was outcry among some. While the president was one of Epstein's many high-profile associates, who also included former president Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, Mr Trump has said he broke off contact with him 20 years ago. When the Wall Street Journal published what it said was a 'bawdy' note from Mr Trump to Epstein for his 50th birthday, he denied having done so and said he was suing the paper and its owner Rupert Murdoch. Last week, Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who was previously Mr Trump's private lawyer, interviewed Maxwell for more than nine hours. Amid reports that the daughter of newspaper baron Sir Robert Maxwell, was seeking a pardon, some of Epstein's victims said it would be an act of betrayal to give one. Asked about a potential pardon, Mr Trump told reporters in Scotland over the weekend: 'Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but I – nobody's approached me with it.'
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US appeals court weighs Trump's authority to revoke legal status for thousands of migrants
July 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court to rule that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted lawfully when she revoked the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign told a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower-court judge had wrongly concluded Noem lacked the discretion to categorically end the immigration "parole" granted to approximately 430,000 migrants by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, halted the agency's action on April 14, saying Noem could only revoke previously granted parole and work authorizations for migrants on a case-by-case basis. Ensign argued that was wrong, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's May 30 decision to put Talwani's ruling in favor of a class of migrants on hold pending further appeals, which allowed the parole terminations to take effect. "As the Supreme Court has already implicitly recognized by a lopsided vote, the government is likely to prevail on appeal, either in this court or, if necessary, in the Supreme Court," he said. "This court should reject the plaintiffs' brazen request to defy the Supreme Court." The Biden administration, starting in 2022, let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. Ensign said Noem was legally entitled to categorically end those parole programs, saying she "profoundly disagrees" with the Biden administration's view that they were needed to alleviate pressures at the border and improve the overall immigration system. All three judges on the 1st Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. In May, before the Supreme Court acted, the panel declined to halt Talwani's order, saying Noem had not made a strong showing that her categorical termination of early grants of parole would be upheld on appeal. While liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor publicly dissented in a lengthy opinion, the majority on the nine-member Supreme Court provided no reasoning for why it was staying Talwani's decision. U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta during Tuesday's argument said that placed him and his 1st Circuit colleagues in an "unusual situation" where they are asked to look to the Supreme Court for guidance on how to proceed and were given only the "bottom line." But he told Justin Cox, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing the class action before Talwani, that the justices' order may indicate they "felt that you're at the short end of the stick on the likelihood of success on the merits." Cox said the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court's order was a reason not to defer to it, saying the 1st Circuit "would be speculating if it sought to assign a particular meaning to it." U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí predicted that even if the 1st Circuit upheld Talwani's decision, the Homeland Security Department could seek to again terminate the migrants' parole status through a new agency action. But Cox said a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would still be "quite valuable" regardless. "At a minimum, it would let our clients and the class members have the dignity of leaving on their own terms, as opposed to being subjected to the kinds of removal and detention processes that are happening right now," he said. The case is Doe v. Noem, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1384. For the plaintiffs: Justin Cox of the Law Office of Justin B Cox For the United States: Drew Ensign of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants US appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants' status US judge to block Trump from revoking thousands of migrants' legal status
