Information Technology and the Presentation of Complex Data to Juries in Fraud Trials
| Published date | 01 February 1993 |
| Date | 01 February 1993 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025611 |
| Pages | 111-116 |
| Author | Richard O'Rorke |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Information Technology and the
Presentation of Complex Data to Juries in
Fraud Trials
Richard O'Rorke
Richard O'Rorke
is a barrister specialising in commercial
fraud.
He is a member of the Committee
on Information Technology and the
Courts (ITAC), representing the interests
of the Criminal Bar. The views expressed
below are personal and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the
Criminal Bar Association or of the
Committee.
ABSTRACT
This paper considers of the advantages and
limitations of the presentation of evidence
by electronic means in three recent trials.
January and February 1992 saw the close
of the County Natwest and Barlow Clowes
trials,
which took place in custom-built
courtrooms leased for the purpose by
the Lord Chancellor's Department
(LCD) in Chichester Rents, in Chancery
Lane. In each case the Serious Fraud
Office (SFO) presented its case to the
jury with the help of visual aids which
had been used with some success in
earlier cases, notably the DPR Futures
trial which took place in the spring of
1990 at the Central Criminal Court.
Inevitably trials of this length and com-
plexity made demands on judge, jury
and lawyers alike by reason both of the
mass of material which has to be consid-
ered and the length of time taken by
evidence, speeches and summing up.
The County Natwest trial took nearly a
year to reach its conclusion, and the first
Barlow Clowes trial took 110 working
days spread over seven months. A second
trial, which concerned the reverse take-
over of James Ferguson Holdings by
Peter Clowes and his associates, was dis-
continued. It was if anything more com-
plicated than the first, and was expected
to take almost as long to try.
The special procedures relating to
serious fraud trials contained in the
Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 1987 were
born out of the recommendations of the
Roskill Commission. Sections 7-10 of
the Act enable the trial judge to hold a
series of preparatory hearings in order to
define and limit the issues between
prosecution and defence and to make
directions on the form in which evi-
dence should be presented to the jury,
for example by way of agreed schedules.
So far little use has been made of this
procedure to encourage either side to
make use of information technology.1 In
the cases already mentioned the SFO
had already prepared its ground and
produced the desired data in electronic
form before formal transfer to the
111
To continue reading
Request your trial