Anonymous Witnesses

[milldog]

So with the latest ruling what do you think, should people helping the police fear for their lives during giving evidence???

Graham

PS I will now know who you are

[Sparky750]

In some ways i can see the reasons for the ruling how do you question someones integrity and honesty if you don't know who they are? On the other hand I know of a few people who will be over the moon about this because nobody in their right mind would take a stand against them if they couldn't hide behind anonymity I know i certainly wouldn't without a bloody good hiding place for my whole family. So I'm not sure how this can be progressed although generally to get to trial these days there has to be some pretty strong evidence and to me the rights of the accused come behind those willing to help. If i was testifying against you Graham all i'd have to do is make sure all entries to where i'm hiding are narrower than 6ft

[liamm]

It must be a defense barristers wet dream.........no witnessess

[macstinator]

When i go down, i want to know who sold me up the river...

[liamm]

Originally Posted by macstinator

When i go down, i want to know who sold me up the river...

when i go down i want to be sure the favour will be returned ......

ill get my coat then

[Jay_Benson]

There are in this situation, like many others, two sides to the story.

Firstly the defendant needs to be able to defend themselves from accusation. This may involve understanding motives for accusing people - e.g. is it purely revenge.

On the other hand there is the right of the witness to protection from intimidation. If the defendent is a member of a gang then there may be some reluctance to give evidence in open court for fear of retribution.

Anonymising evidence allows witnesses to continue to live their lives relatively normally without having to go into a witness protection scheme.

Perhaps there is a halfway house that needs to be maintained. Say something along the lines of a witness requires anonymity and so pre trial their evidence is subjected to a fully independant examination by a court such that any ulterior motives / weaknesses can be exposed at the earliest opportunity.

I want to be a lawyer so that is my £8,223.76 worth.





I don't want to be a lawyer really.

[Finless]

On balance I think that the right to a fair trial is paramount so the defence lawyer's ability to question a witness is essential.

Perhaps the judge's discretion should be the deciding factor in making a decision as to whether to allow anonymity?

[nigelH]

I can sympathise with the Law Lords on this one because the essence of law is a fair trial and the idea that if the case against you isn't fully proved in open, public proceedings you are innocent.

However I think we need some sort of compromise here where the side wishing to call the witness can make a case for anonymity because a witness may have justifiable cause for concern.

However I do suspect that the number of cases where identity is an issue are vanishingly small. When a witness is in fear it is protection that is the issue. The defendant normally knows who they are or can have a good guess. Providing anonymity should not be a substitute for providing adequate protection.

[Jay_Benson]

Originally Posted by Finless

On balance I think that the right to a fair trial is paramount so the defence lawyer's ability to question a witness is essential.

Perhaps the judge's discretion should be the deciding factor in making a decision as to whether to allow anonymity?

I thought that the defence lawyer was still allowed to ask questions but were not allowed to know the identity of the witness.

[hilrosepaul]

What' s the impact on calls to Crimestoppers?