Many lawyers regard these proposals as inherently suspect.

Leading judges have fired a broadside at the government’s plans for ‘plea negotiation’ in fraud cases (see Joshua Rozenberg). Chief among their reservations is a fear that ministers – in spite of their denials – are intent on importing the US system of plea bargaining under another name. The dangers of this are manifold, they stress, and include concerns about unfair pressure being brought to bear, and overcharging to secure a plea to ‘something’.

Amid reservations about the practical minutiae of the proposals lies a more basic concern. Plea bargaining (however one wants to euphemise it) can work only if defendants reckon they are going to be found guilty. On recent form, the alleged fraudster targeted by the Serious Fraud Office has a very good chance of acquittal and faces a relatively low sentence even if found guilty. He may well wish to chance his arm.

The crux of the matter, of course, is contained in the judges’ rather plaintive assertion that ‘financial implications… should not drive the process’. Indeed not. But of course financial considerations are driving the process – as they are across the justice system, from legal aid to the operation of HM Courts Service. And that is one reason why many lawyers regard these proposals as inherently suspect, however noble the intentions of the Attorney General.