{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2017}} {{Use British English|date=August 2017}} {{Infobox court case | name = Jubilee Line Corruption Trial | court = [[Old Bailey|Central Criminal Court]] | date decided = 22 March 2005 | full name = R v Rayment and others (Stephen Rayment, Mark Woodward-Smith, Paul Maw, Paul Fisher, Mark Skinner, Graham Scard and Anthony Wootton) | judges = Judge [[Ann Goddard]] QC | citations = [https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/crown-prosecution-service/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/JubileeLineExecSummary.pdf HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Report June 2006] | opinions = The Jubilee Line case, which had been ongoing since 2003, was terminated in 2005 after the prosecution chose not to oppose the discharge of the jury, leading to public concern and media attention; subsequently, the [[Attorney General for England and Wales|Attorney General]] initiated a review to examine the case's circumstances and suggest measures to prevent similar outcomes. | Keywords = {{hlist|[[Attorney General for England and Wales]]|[[Bribery]]|[[Corruption]]|[[Fraud]]|[[Jubilee Line Extension]]|[[Transport for London]]}} | start date = 25 June 2003 }} The '''Jubilee line corruption trial''' (''R v Rayment and others''; defendants were S. Rayment, M. Woodward-Smith, P. Maw, P. Fisher, M. Skinner, G. Scard and A. Wootton<ref name="HMCPSI">{{cite web |author=HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate |date=June 2006 |title=Review of the investigation and criminal proceedings relating to the jubilee line case |url=https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/crown-prosecution-service/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/04/JubileeLine_Jun06.pdf |accessdate=11 August 2023 |work=HMCPSI}}</ref>) was a trial at the [[Old Bailey]] in London, England.
It began on 25 June 2003, lasted 21 months, and collapsed on 22 March 2005 upon the prosecution announcing its decision not to oppose a defence application to discharge the jury.<ref name=carol/>
==Dispute== The trial centered around accusations that companies had manipulated the bidding process, exchanged confidential information, and engaged in corrupt practices to win contracts for various aspects of the [[Jubilee Line Extension]] from [[Transport for London|London Underground Limited]] (LUL) in the 1990s.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=2005-03-23 |title=Jubilee line £60m fraud trial collapses |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jubilee-line-acirc-pound-60m-fraud-trial-collapses-5350144.html |access-date=2023-08-12 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref>
The two primary defendants managed a quantity surveying firm called RWS.<ref>{{cite web |last=Clark |first=Phil |last2=Clark|first2=Phil |date=2005-03-23 |title=QSs freed after Jubilee Line Extension fraud case collapses |url=https://www.building.co.uk/news/qss-freed-after-jubilee-line-extension-fraud-case-collapses/3048660.article |access-date=2023-08-12 |website=Building }}</ref> [[Crown Prosecution Service|The prosecution]] alleged that they had influenced specific [[London Underground|LUL]] personnel to access confidential financial data from [[London Underground|LUL]]. This information was purportedly used [[fraud]]ulently for a client contractor during the initial [[Invitation to tender|tendering]] process on contracts worth tens of millions of pounds<ref name=":0" /> and later for multiple client contractors making claims against [[London Underground|LUL]] for contractual changes. One defendant admitted partial guilt for fraudulent actions during the tendering process, while all other defendants denied involvement.<ref name="HMCPSI" />
==Outcomes== The trial sparked concerns about the readiness of [[Juries in England and Wales|juries]], which are selected randomly from the working-age population, to participate in lengthy, full-day trials.<ref name="dave">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/23/transport.constitution|title=Jury protest forces fraud trial collapse after 2 years|first=David|last=Leigh|work=Guardian newspapers|date=23 March 2005|accessdate=25 February 2015}}</ref>
The trial faced several issues, such as two jurors being discharged for personal reasons. Another juror had been assured she could get married and go on a honeymoon in June 2005, but it turned out the trial would still be ongoing at that time. Additionally, two of the defendants became sick during the lengthy trial.<ref name="dave" />
The total expense for the police investigation, legal proceedings, and the entire trial, which also included expenses for the jurors and [[legal aid]], amounted to approximately £60 million. When the trial fell apart, it led to an examination of the "investigation and legal procedures" by the Chief Inspector of the [[Crown Prosecution Service]]. The results of this review were published in June 2006.<ref name="HMCPSI" />
It has been described as one of the longest jury trials to have occurred in the UK, although a subsequent case in Scotland in 2017 sat for longer.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2017-05-16 |title=Two found guilty of fraud after UK's longest criminal trial |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39869370 |access-date=2022-07-19}}</ref>
The "striking" juror{{what|date=March 2024}} who ultimately brought about the collapse remarked that the trial caused him loss of earnings that threatened his ability to pay [[University of Oxford|Oxford University]] fees for a course set to start in October 2005.<ref name=adam>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1486530/No-regrets-The-juror-accused-of-precipitating-the-collapse-of-the-60m-Jubilee-Line-fraud-trial-by-going-on-strike.html |title=No regrets: The juror accused of precipitating the collapse of the £60m Jubilee Line fraud trial by going on strike' |work=Daily Telegraph |first=Adam |last=Lusher |date=27 March 2005 |accessdate=26 February 2017}}</ref> The juror set to marry lost both her wedding date and her job.<ref name=carol>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1486420/Marathon-trial-cost-juror-her-wedding-and-a-job.html |title=Marathon trial cost juror her wedding and a job|first=Carol |last=Davies |work=Daily Telegraph |date=25 March 2005 |accessdate=25 February 2017}}</ref>
== See also == * [[Jubilee Line Extension]] * [[Juries in England and Wales]]
==References== {{Reflist}}
[[Category:2005 in United Kingdom case law]] [[Category:London Underground]] [[Category:2005 in London]] [[Category:English criminal case law]] [[Category:Corruption in England]] [[Category:Trials in London]] [[Category:2005 in rail transport]] [[Category:Railway case law]]