Plea bargaining – the way forward?

The Government Fraud Review, published in July, proposes that a plea bargaining framework should be devised as a method to avoid the costs and time of full scale trials. In the USA, it notes, some 95% of all criminal cases are settled by some form of plea bargaining. The Review estimates that the savings could amount to UK£50 million a year, although it is not clear whether this recognises that there may well be considerably more prosecutions if other recommendations about the reporting and investigation of fraud are also implemented. Ian Wilson of Russell Jones & Walker considers the proposal.

Ian Wilson is a partner at Russell Jones & Walker and Head of the Fraud and Regulatory Department in Bristol. He may be contacted on tel: +44 (0) 117 987 6255; email: i.d.wilson@rjw.co.uk

The Fraud Review describes plea bargaining as an agreement between prosecution and defence that involves a guilty admission to a particular charge or charges and a sentence recommendation to the Court. It stresses that this is not fraudsters “buying their way” out of justice. A fraudster entering into a plea bargain “must admit guilt, accept a criminal record and sometimes serve time in jail”. The use of the word sometimes should be contrasted with other parts of the Review where concern seems to be expressed about the low levels of custodial sentences in fraud cases and calls for an increase in maximum sentences to fourteen years.