I think when lawyers talk about complexity they see it through a particular prism. There are many different factors that can make a case complex for the lawyers. If you imagine a case where all the witnesses don't speak English and have to give evidence through an interpreter, that adds an element of complexity - for instance, does a familiar English legal concept have a direct equivalent in a jurisdiction governed by Sharia law? Are there nuances in the original evidence that are lost (or added) when it is translated into English? These add complexity to a case that in itself might be quite straightforward.
Then there is the simple value of the claim. A case that might be relatively straightforward in factual or legal terms may have an added layer of complexity simply because of the number of zeros on the claim form. The complexity arises simply because the stakes are so eye-wateringly high.
Then there is the volume of evidence. What again in factual or legal terms can be a relatively straightforward matter can become complex simply due to the vast amount of evidence or documentation. If you are seeking to infer dishonesty from a person's conduct, for instance - a simple enough concept - the complexity may come in trying to discern whether their motives are dishonest from a vast array of evidence about what they were doing and why.
Then there is legal complexity. For instance, in the 115 charges a number of legal issues arise which are not difficult concepts - eg limitation - but have to be considered within the context of a regulatory sphere, where their application may not be so straightforward. That adds another layer of complexity.
When you have a combination of factors such as the above, it becomes difficult to see a lengthy case as anything other than complex. This does not mean that when you boil it all down to its bare essentials, it doesn't reduce to some relatively straightforward factual or legal issues. But the tricky part - the complexity - is in boiling down a vast range of legal and factual issues to some relatively straightforward legal or factual questions.
Speaking for myself, I'd struggle to describe this many charges, with this much evidence, and this many legal issues, and this long a trial as anything other than complex. It doesn't mean that ultimately you can't reduce it to a simple question - did MCFC disguise owner investment as sponsorship - but you need to hack through a very dense jungle of evidence and documentation to get there.
