header-logo header-logo

Blind shots at a hidden target

31 July 2008 / Seamus Burns
Issue: 7332 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Does the use of anonymous evidence weaken the principle of open justice? Seamus Burns reports

The unanimous decision of the House of Lords, in R v Davis [2008] All ER (D) 222 (Jun), [2008] UKHL 36 signals the extreme reluctance of the law lords to depart from long-established principles enshrined in the common law that the defend ant in a criminal trial ought to be confronted by his accusers so that he might effectively cross-examine and challenge their evidence, and will not be disregarded on the pretext of expedient arguments from the state about the necessity of using anonymous witnesses.

The defendant and appellant, Ian Davis, was convicted on 25 April 2004 at the Central Criminal Court of the murder of two men (allegedly he was the gunman who had fired a shot killing both victims, which Davis vigorously denied) at an all-night New Year's Eve party in a flat in Hackney. This conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on 19 May 2006, [2006] EWCA Crim 1155, [2006] 1

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll