Criminals have a right to know who have testified against them

[Oneeyedvic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7466946.stm

Criminals could walk free from prison because of a "potentially disastrous" ruling by the Law Lords, a senior police officer said.

Defendants in criminal trials now have a legal right to know the identity of witnesses testifying anonymously against them.

John Yates, of the Metropolitan Police, told the Daily Telegraph that convicted criminals could launch appeals.

On the one hand, how can you have an effective defence against a witness if you don't know who they are?

On the other hand, would you be a witness if you were in fear of your life?

Any thoughts?

[solitude]

I think you have a right to face a witness against you - how do you know if there are hidden movties to their testimony: to get themselves a break/out of trouble; personal agendas, etc.; I do believe that sometimes confidential informants being used in ongoing criminal investigations should be able to give testimony annonymously - such as undercover operatives. Your defense is hamstrung without such information regarding witnesses. I bet the people who disagree would change their tunes when it was them or their loved ones in the dock and it all suddenly seemed so unfair!!

[123everton]

I'm absolutely horrified by this ruling.
The judiciary in this country needs reforming completely, in whose interests do they serve?
Their own!
You could'nt make it up, we need a judiciary elected by the people then we'll get the society we deserve and want.
I could show you people whose lives were made miserable by thugs, I could show you people who walk around their estates with impunity built on fear, it's easy if you live in a leafy suburb to make pronouncements on laws, unlike on the estates were you have a largely indifferent and invisible Police force.
The party that says it will take 5p a litre off fuel, build more prisons, and lock up more criminal for longer will win by a landslide. I promise you.

[tigerlily11]

Well thats that. You can kiss goodbye to ever getting a conviction in a case where witness are really afraid to give evidence.
Which means there will be a lot of serious, violent criminals who will be walking free to continues doing what they please safe in the knowledge that no one will come forward to give evidence against them because there is no safty for them.
Yep no doubt there are some cases that has witness that are giving evidence for ulteria motives but I think the cons of identifying witnesses out ways the pros.

[LAW_DROP-OUT]

i think , its in potential dangerous situations , were the identity of a witness , may be concealed ,, like gang shootings ,,,,,, depends how serious the case is ...although standing up , even as a witness for a very minor type , of case , can be intimmiidating fir anyone..

[Oneeyedvic]

The party that says it will take 5p a litre off fuel, build more prisons, and lock up more criminal for longer will win by a landslide. I promise you.

If so what a sad indication of this country. People care more about the cost of petrol than the NHS, schools, police etc etc?

We already lock up more people for longer periods than most of the western world. Why not look at things that may work instead of flogging a dead horse.

tigerlily - I think I probably agree with your sentiment - there are arguments to both sides, but on the weight of evidence, it is probably wise to have anonymous witnesses and let the jury decide.

[New Judge]

"We already lock up more people for longer periods than most of the western world.

Whilst this is straying somewhat from the original question, Vic, I think your comments are worth a mention and it is a topic about which I have considerable knowledge.

As you rightly say, the UK has a high proportion of people in prison compared to the population as a whole � one of the highest in the western world. However, we have a fairly low rate of imprisonment when looking at prison sentences imposed per number of crimes committed. This is simply because we have the top rate (though sometimes second to Australia) of theft and violence offences in the developed world.

Spain has about half as much crime of this type as us, but a much higher rate of imprisonment (nearly all such offences committed there result in custody). The UK sees about 80% more of such crimes than does France (with a similar population) but the percentage of the population in custody here is about the same as in France. So far fewer of these offences here result in imprisonment.

The search for alternatives that you suggest has already been done. Only a very small number (less than 3%) of those convicted for the first time are first time offenders. Most of them have records for earlier offences which have been dealt with by other disposals. Two thirds of people entering prison have been there before. In short, those who are already criminals commit most of the offences which warrant custody.

There are large numbers of people for whom no suitable rehabilitative punishment can be found. Prison may not work for them (as indeed nothing seems to) but it works for the country as a whole because it relieves society of their activities for the period they are incarcerated.

The problem in the UK is the level of crime, not the over-use of custody.

[grumpy80]

As someone who has been able to give evidence under this protection I am disgusted by this. It makes me sick to think the guy who did nearly kill me and one other person could walk free because I gave evidence as an unknown person.

[New Judge]

Sorry, noticed a typo in my earlier post. It should read:


Only a very small number (less than 3%) of those imprisoned for the first time are first time offenders.