FLA DISMAY OVER IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT AND FRAUD BILL

6 December 2005

FLA (Finance & Leasing Association) has written to the Shadow Lord Chancellor, Lord Kingsland, expressing dismay at Opposition tactics in the House of Lords over the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act and Fraud Bill. The letter from director general Martin Hall is shown below.

Rt Hon Lord Kingsland QC, TD, DL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT & FRAUD BILL

I am dismayed to learn of the delays to implementation of Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act and consequently to the passage of the Fraud Bill, resulting from Opposition tactics in the House of Lords. Whilst I am sure this is not the intended outcome of Opposition policy, these delays serve the interests of fraudsters rather than of justice.

By way of background, FLA is the principal representative of the asset, consumer and motor finance sectors in the UK. Our full members include banks, subsidiaries of banks and building societies, the finance arms of leading retailers and manufacturing companies, and a range of independent firms. The facilities they provide include leasing, hire purchase, personal loans, and credit and store cards.  Our associate members are firms of lawyers, accountants, data providers, software houses and others who supply services to full members.

The prevention and investigation of fraud is something that our members and FLA itself take very seriously indeed, on which our members have worked collaboratively for some years. We take a leading role in the credit industry in initiating innovative projects in this area, such as the establishment of the Vehicle Fraud Unit within the Metropolitan Police. We are members of the Fraud Advisory Panel and of the Fraud Prevention Liaison Group, which includes BBA, APACS, CIFAS, CML and about 10 other trade associations. We maintain a number of standing groups of members on fraud-related issues.

We therefore welcomed publication of the Fraud Bill, on the basis that it would simplify the law and, importantly, make the prosecution process more effective. We understood that it had the support of the Opposition and we expected it to receive Royal Assent early in 2006.

We also welcomed the proposed implementation of Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act. We know from the experience of our members and the police that trial by jury of particularly complex fraud cases requires so much time and resource, and is so unlikely to result in conviction, that prosecutions of the most serious and complex cases are avoided. This means that relatively minor, straightforward cases are more likely to be prosecuted than are more important, serious cases. This is clearly unjust and counterproductive. We acknowledge however that Section 43 has proved to be a more controversial issue, raising wider issues in many people’s minds.  What we find irrational and unhelpful about the Opposition’s position is delay to passage of the Fraud Bill. While both matters relate to improving the likelihood of securing convictions of fraudsters, they are distinct, and each should be treated on its merits.

I would welcome your comments on this urgent and important matter.

I intend to publish this letter.

Martin Hall