Morning:
13°c
Anonymity ruling jeopardises murder trials
Benedict Moore-Bridger, Evening Standard19.06.08
The Metropolitan Police have written to Justice Secretary Jack Straw to complain after a double murder conviction was quashed because witnesses gave evidence anonymously.
The ruling by the Law Lords has sent shockwaves through Scotland Yard, which now fears future murder trials may crumble if witnesses are not protected. In new measures to combat gang violence the Government announced last month an instant guarantee of anonymity for witnesses who come forward to testify against gang members.
But the House of Lords yesterday decided killer Iain Davis would now be allowed to appeal against his murder conviction because granting witnesses anonymity in his trial was "unfair".
Davis was convicted at the Old Bailey of the 2002 killing of two men in a shooting at a flat in Hackney.
The Met have now written to Mr Straw to see what legislative action can be taken. They particularly fear that prosecutions for Operation Trident cases, which deal with black-onblackcrimes, could suffer most because of witness intimidation.
Seven witnesses at the Davis trial were allowed anonymity in order to persuade them to give evidence. But Lord Bingham, head of the panel of Law Lords, yesterday said "the defendant in a criminal trial should be confronted by his accusers in order that he may cross-examine them".
Reader views (2)
I now believe the law of this our fair and promised land is now a joke. Those murderers who now plan to appeal there sentence,can now retaliate against those who have given evidence,against them,and get away with a miss trial. These so called Law Lords need to hang up there wigs and gowns,and seek professional help. The goverment must now seek redress from the European courts, we, are now the laughing stock of the World. Lord Bingham has made a serious misjudgement,and should stand down as a Law Lord, shame on you Bingham.
- Bill L Lorimer, London England
On this occasion I think the veritable Lord Bingham has misdirected himself. Clearly there is a possibility that a malicious witness could give a false testimony and pervert the course of justice. This has to be weighed against the possibility that an accused would exact his revenge on the witness whose anonymity is compromised. And if the crime is murder one can only guess what form his revenge might be.
- Jeremiah, London
