Previous Document

1.5. The focus on 'complex' and criminal trials


'Complexity', not 'fraud'


Our terms of reference are directed towards 'complex criminal trials', not the
narrower class, 'complex fraud trials'. Complex criminal cases encompass
'witness cases' as well as the 'document cases' which are more common in
complex fraud matters: Weinberg (1991). 'Witness' cases such as the 'Milperra
massacre' trial (see Roden (1988)) or the War Crimes trials may involve great
complexity, partly because of the very large numbers of witnesses. Conflicting
expert witnesses and intricacy of evidence (for example, in the Chamberlain
trials) may also introduce great complexity. The complexities of evidence in
such cases may be reduced by reliance upon computerised transcript retrieval,
and by the use of presentation graphics to simplify evidence for the jury. In
'witness' cases, in contrast to 'document' cases, much less reliance is likely
to be placed on document control databases and imaging systems, but
information technology still has a significant role to play. Like Carter
(1988), we 'suspect that from whatever the source of difficulty or complexity,
the problems will essentially be the same'.

The debate about whether a special regime is required for complex fraud trials
(such as advocated by Roskill (1986), and adopted in the United Kingdom with
the creation of the Serious Fraud Office), or whether some special procedures
should be available for all complex trials (as advocated by Aronson (1992),
pgs 3-5), is only affected marginally by considerations

                                                            Next Document