header-logo header-logo

Government should avoid knee-jerk witness legislation

26 June 2008
Issue: 7327 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Freedom of Information
printer mail-detail

Legal news

The government should beware of imposing improperly thought through legislation in the wake of the House of Lords ruling on the use of evidence from anonymous witnesses, say experts.

In R v Davis the law lords found that by using anonymous witnesses in a murder trial, the defendant was denied the opportunity to properly advance his defence, rendering his trial unfair. The defendant was convicted of the 2004 murder of two men outside a party on New Year’s Eve on the evidence of two witnesses from behind a screen.

After the ruling, Justice Minister Jack Straw said that he was looking at introducing legislation urgently to put the use of anonymous witnesses on a statutory footing. Straw said, “It’s absolutely fundamental that defendants should be able literally to see and hear the evidence before them, but you then have to balance that with what actually happens in real life these days”. Mr Straw pledged to introduce legislation by the end of 2008.

Malcolm Swift QC says that although Davis is likely to the first of many cases to go to appeal, the Government should consider legislation carefully. “It is important is that the Government does not indulge in knee-jerk legislation egged on by those disappointed by the decision in Davis and keeps in mind that witness intimidation and retaliation are, contrary to the propaganda, extremely rare,” he says.

Swift says that the government could look abroad or to the international courts for guidance on legislating for anonymous witnesses but should do so with caution.

“The Government may seek to improve, extend and place on a statutory footing the existing ad hoc witness protection/relocation system or may legislate to regulate witness anonymity in the trial process—a course incompatible with Art 6, unless it preserves the defendant’s confrontation rights particularly his right to effective cross-examination,“ he says.

He adds that the model adopted by the International Criminal Tribunals and the International Criminal Court may be appropriate.

Issue: 7327 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Freedom of Information
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll