Lawyers for trader Tom Hayes have filed grounds of appeal to overturn his conviction for rigging the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR).
The case was referred to the court earlier this year following a ‘wide-ranging and complex’ review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
Hayes was convicted in 2015 of multiple charges of conspiracy to defraud. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment, later reduced to 11 years. Hayes served five and a half years in prison and was released in 2021. He has always maintained his innocence.
The appeal, which is yet to be listed, ‘concerns the directions given to the jury in the…trial concerning the LIBOR definition and the agreement alleged’, according to court documents filed by Hayes’ legal team. ‘Those directions were wrong in law. They resulted in a trial that was wholly unfair, and convictions which are unsafe.
‘The misdirection was not merely significant, it was fundamental; the summing-up was underpinned by a misapprehension as to the nature and effect of the applicable legal duties, and as a result failed to comply with the most basic requirement to explain to the jury the issues about which they had to be sure.’
In January 2022, a US court overturned the convictions of two other former traders convicted in similar circumstances. As a result, all charges against Hayes in the US were dropped.
Hayes’ legal team states that the ‘factual case ought to have been central to the jury’s determination’ and that the Court of Appeal should ‘prefer’ the US court’s approach, that is ‘undoubtedly in conflict with the approach taken at [Hayes] trial’.
Earlier this year, the CCRC concluded that there is a ‘real possibility that the Court of Appeal will prefer the legal approach to the definition and operation of the LIBOR rules taken by the US court and overturn Mr Hayes’ conviction’.
The two grounds of appeal put forward in court documents by Hayes’ legal team include that the trial judge was wrong in law to direct the jury that there was an absolute legal prohibition on commercial influence in the LIBOR-setting process. Hayes’ team said: ‘No such prohibition in law exists.’
The second ground of appeal argues that the judge was wrong to direct the jury that if Hayes ‘agreed to procure submissions which were intended to advantage his trading then the sole remaining issue was dishonesty’.
The Serious Fraud Office said today: ‘We are considering the grounds and will respond in due course.’
Commenting at the time of the CCRC’s decision in July 2023, an SFO spokesperson said: ‘All our prosecutions are based on evidence and the applicable law. We stand ready to support the Court of Appeal as it considers this referral.’
Solicitor Karen Todner and QEB Hollis Whiteman’s Adrian Darbishire KC and Tom Doble are acting on behalf of Hayes.
