Judicial system needs ‘shake-up' after trader convictions, says Sir David Davis
Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo were found guilty over benchmark interest rate rigging in 2015 and 2019 respectively, but had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
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
Bloomberg
20 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
China Fails to Capitalize on Europe's Grievances Over US Tariffs
I'm Chris Anstey, an economics editor in Boston. Today we're looking at Europe-China ties. Send us feedback and tips to ecodaily@ And if you aren't yet signed up to receive this newsletter, you can do so here. Fifty years after the European Economic Community (now the European Union) established diplomatic ties with mainland China, relations with Beijing are at an ' inflection point.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
16-year-olds to be given vote at next election in landmark change
The voting age is to be lowered to 16 in time for the next election, the government has announced in a move that would allow around 1.5 million more teenagers to cast a ballot. The change will bring UK-wide elections in line with Scotland and Wales by the time the country next goes to the polls, due by the summer of 2029 at the latest. The 'seismic' development, which is part of a raft of measures set to be introduced through a new Elections Bill, is the biggest change to the electorate since 1969 when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Keir Starmer encouraged 16 and 17 year olds to use their vote at next election. No 10 said the PM would 'absolutely encourage them to be as engaged as they can be in the future of their country'. Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner said: 'For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline. 'We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy… and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give 16-year-olds the right to vote.' Sixteen-year-olds already work, pay taxes and serve in the military, ministers point out. Rushanara Ali, the minister for democracy, said the move would take 'a generational step forward in restoring public trust and boosting engagement in UK democracy'. But politicians from other parties have accused Starmer of trying to 'rig future elections' with the change. The PM insisted last year the issue was one of fairness. He said: 'If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.' Across the world there are only a handful of countries where the voting age is less than 18. In 2024 only Nicaragua, Scotland (for devolved Scottish Parliament and council elections), the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Ethiopia, Ecuador, Cuba, Brazil, and Austria had votes at 16. Last year the then Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns, who has since lost her seat and defected to Nigel Farage's Reform party, put a video out on X (formerly Twitter) claiming that Starmer wants to 'rig future elections'. But Chris Annous, from pollsters More in Common, said expanding the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds 'will have little impact on election results - outside of hyper marginal seats'. A new poll has also found nearly half of 16 and 17-year-olds don't think they should be allowed to vote. The survey of 500 16 and 17-year-olds by Merlin Strategy for ITV News found that 49 per cent didn't think the voting age should be lowered to 16, while 51 per cent said it should. The plans will also see UK-issued bank cards as an accepted form of ID at the polling stations. A more automated voter registration system will also make it easier for people to register to vote, the government said. New changes will also close loopholes that would allow foreign donors via 'shell companies' to influence UK political parties. It follows reports earlier this year that Elon Musk was preparing to give $100m (£80m) to Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, in what would have been by far the largest donation in British electoral history. The changes will also allow the Electoral Commission to take action and enforce heavier fines of up to £500,000 on those who breach political finance rules, and enable tougher sentences for those who abuse election campaigners. The reforms come as the official watchdog the Electoral Commission reported that spending at last summer's general election hit a record high of £94.5 million, including £69.3 million spent by political parties. Labour outspent its rivals, shelling out £30 million during the campaign, more than twice the amount it spent five years earlier, while the Conservatives spent £23.9 million and the Liberal Democrats £5.6 million. Reform spent £5.5 million, the Greens £1.7 million and the SNP £799,000. Harry Quilter-Pinner, executive director of the IPPR think tank, said the changes were "the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969", when the voting age was lowered to 18. He said: "Barely half of people voted in last year's general election. Our democracy is in crisis, and we risk reaching a tipping point where politics loses its legitimacy. The government has clearly heard these alarm bells." No 10 'absolutely rejected' claims that the reform was being brought in to shore up the government's vote.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Centene Reports $253 Million Loss Amid Health Insurer Cost Struggles
Centene chief executive officer Sarah London on Friday July 25, 2025 said the company is ... More "disappointed by our second quarter results, but we have a clear understanding of the trends that have impacted our performance, and are working with urgency and focus to restore our earnings trajectory." In this photo, London speaks during the Forbes Healthcare Summit in New York, US, on Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2023. Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg Health insurer Centene reported a $253 million loss in its second quarter as the provider of government-subsidized benefits struggles to manage costs of its health plan members. The $253 million loss, or 51 cents a share, compares to a $1.1 billion in net income, or $2.16 a share, in the second quarter of last year, Centene disclosed Friday in its quarterly earnings report. Centene said premium and service revenues increased 18% to $42.5 billion from $36 billion in the year ago period. Centene, which has 28 million health plan subscribers, is seeing rising costs among health plan members in all three government-subsidized benefits it helps manage: Medicaid, Medicare Advantage and individual coverage under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. "We are disappointed by our second quarter results, but we have a clear understanding of the trends that have impacted our performance and are working with urgency and focus to restore our earnings trajectory," Centene Chief Executive Officer Sarah M. London said in a statement accompanying the company's earnings report. "Despite the shifting landscape, we believe that the staying power of Medicaid, Medicare and the Individual Marketplace is as strong as it has ever been. Centene has significantly fortified our platform in service of these programs over the last three years, and as we move forward, we are focused on continuing to adapt with the market to deliver meaningful value to our members, our stakeholders and our shareholders over the long term." Centene, which planned to reveal its 2025 profit forecast during a call with analysts Friday morning, pulled its financial guidance earlier this month, citing an independent firm's analysis showing patients it provides health benefits for were sicker and needed more healthcare services than anticipated. On Friday, Centene said its health benefits ratio, which is the percentage of premium revenue that goes toward medical costs, jumped to 93% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 87.6% in the comparable period in 2024. 'The (health benefits ratio) increase was primarily driven by a reduction in the company's net 2025 Marketplace risk adjustment revenue transfer estimate, increased Marketplace medical costs, higher medical costs in Medicaid driven primarily by behavioral health, home health and high-cost drugs, and an increase to the 2025 Medicare Advantage premium deficiency reserve based on the progression of earnings during the year (with higher earnings at the beginning of the year and lower at the end of the year, given cost sharing progression),' Centene said in its second quarter earnings report. Centene's cost struggles are only the latest among a parade of health insurance companies that have struggled in the last two years to control costs of subscribers in plans subsidized by the government. Just last week, Elevance Health, which sells Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in 14 states, lower its profit forecast for the rest of 2025 due to rising costs in its Medicaid plans and individual policies it sells under the Affordable Care Act. In addition, Molina Healthcare lowered its earnings guidance for the rest of the year in the face of cost pressures in all three of the government-subsidized health insurance programs it helps manage: Medicaid, Medicare Advantage and individual coverage under the ACA, also known as Obamacare. And in May, UnitedHealth suspended its financial outlook for the rest of the year and replaced its top executive as the parent of UnitedHealthcare grapples with rising healthcare costs in its Medicare Advantage business. Medicare Advantage plans contract with the federal government to provide health benefits to seniors. Medicare Advantage plans also contributed to struggles last year for Humana and CVS Health, which elevated a new chief executive in part to help gain control of its struggling Aetna health insurance business. CVS is also exiting the individual health insurance business, leaving about 1 million Aetna members in 17 states looking for new coverage in 2026.
