Five traders’ convictions quashed: when a later judgment may justify a fresh appeal
By Peter Bonner & Co · Reviewed by Christopher Carter · 8 October 2026
On 7 October 2026, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) announced that the Court of Appeal had quashed five former traders’ convictions following its referrals. The cases concerned LIBOR and EURIBOR, benchmark interest rates used in financial markets. The applications followed the Supreme Court’s decision in the cases of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo.[1]
The development has significance beyond financial crime. It illustrates why a later judgment can make it worth examining the legal directions given in an earlier trial, even where an ordinary appeal has already been unsuccessful. It does not mean that every conviction involving a similar allegation will be overturned.
What was wrong with the earlier approach?
In R v Hayes; R v Palombo [2025] UKSC 29, decided on 23 July 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously quashed both convictions. An important issue was whether rate submissions represented the submitters’ genuine opinions. That factual question belonged to the jury.[2]
The Court rejected the approach that an influence from trading advantage necessarily made a submission false or misleading as a matter of law. Evidence of that influence could support an inference against a defendant, but the jury had to decide whether to draw it. The ruling did not hold that manipulating a benchmark could never be criminal.[2]
The CCRC says its review of the five further cases found no distinguishing factors, and that jury misdirection and legal errors undermined the safety of the convictions.[1]
Does a later judgment give everyone another appeal?
No. A solicitor must compare the later decision with the actual charges, trial directions and previous appeal in the individual case. Similar headlines are not enough. The question is whether an identifiable legal problem provides a properly arguable challenge to that conviction.
For someone seeking to appeal a Crown Court conviction in the ordinary way, permission is required. The usual deadline is 28 days from conviction; for a sentence appeal it is 28 days from sentencing. An application outside the deadline must explain the delay, and an extension is not guaranteed.[3]
The CCRC ordinarily comes into play after the direct appeal route has been tried unsuccessfully. It can consider a conviction, a sentence, or both. It says applications normally need something new and significant, such as fresh evidence or a new legal argument. Simply repeating points already considered is unlikely to advance an application. Applying to the CCRC is free.[4][5]
A CCRC referral does not itself overturn a conviction. The appeal court decides the outcome. Neither a later judgment nor an application guarantees that a case will be referred or a conviction quashed.[1]
What should someone concerned about an earlier conviction do?
Seek advice promptly, particularly if an appeal deadline may still be running. Gather the charge or indictment, the judge’s summing-up or legal directions, any appeal judgment and previous advice. Identify the later decision and explain which issue you believe connects it to your case. A solicitor can assess what further records are needed and which route is available.
Peter Bonner & Co can assess enquiries about criminal appeals and advise on the appropriate next steps. The starting point is a careful examination of the individual proceedings and the alleged error. Contact the firm.
General information: This article concerns England and Wales and reflects sources checked on 8 October 2026. It is general information, not legal advice on an individual case. Appeal rights, deadlines and prospects depend on the particular proceedings.