In this article, Nick Vamos and Abbie Melvin examine the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to quash Tom Hayes’ LIBOR-rigging conviction, focusing on how a judicial misdirection to the jury rendered the verdict unsafe despite strong evidence of wrongdoing.

The piece explores whether such outcomes could be avoided through judge only trials in complex fraud cases, as recently proposed in the Leveson Review, weighing the potential for clearer reasoning against the increased scope for appeals.

Balancing efficiency with fairness, the article ultimately questions whether removing juries would undermine democratic safeguards, arguing that while judge led trials may appear neater, juries remain a vital protection within the justice system.

Please click here to read.