header-logo header-logo

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

Blind shots at a hidden target

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll