If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Anonymous Evidence in Criminal Trials
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
With the big scandal about the House of Lords barring people from giving evidence anonymously at criminal trials, what do people think about what's happening now?
For me, I think the Law Lords were right and that it is fundamental to a fair trial to know who is attacking you. If you don't know who is saying that you did something it is impossible for you to defend yourself properly. Just because the police say you did it, and an anonymous person says you did it, doesn't mean that you actually did.
The fact that any number of jealous former partners or business rivals can say what they want about you, and you can't try and show that they're lying, inevitably means that people do not get a fair trial. And the fact that they're allowed to give evidence anonymously will inevitably strengthen the prosecution case in the eyes of a jury: if the witness is so scared they testify anonymously, the defendant must be a right nasty piece of work. It's inevitable that juries will draw that conclusion, no matter how much they're told not to.
I understand the concerns- anonymous evidence means that people will give evidence against some scary people. Take that away and they will clam up and some very dangerous people will walk free.
But I think that, on balance, the right to a fair trial should take precedence over the conviction rate for any crime. There should be extra steps taken to allow people to give evidence in safety, and more circumstantial evidence should be allowed to tip the balance (particularly in sexual assault cases), but I don't think that anonymous evidence should be allowed.
All it will mean is that people with a beef against someone can frame them. Juries will side with the witness against the defendant, the defendant can't ask the right questions, and people get sent down when they did nothing wrong.
For me, I think the Law Lords were right and that it is fundamental to a fair trial to know who is attacking you. If you don't know who is saying that you did something it is impossible for you to defend yourself properly. Just because the police say you did it, and an anonymous person says you did it, doesn't mean that you actually did.
The fact that any number of jealous former partners or business rivals can say what they want about you, and you can't try and show that they're lying, inevitably means that people do not get a fair trial. And the fact that they're allowed to give evidence anonymously will inevitably strengthen the prosecution case in the eyes of a jury: if the witness is so scared they testify anonymously, the defendant must be a right nasty piece of work. It's inevitable that juries will draw that conclusion, no matter how much they're told not to.
I understand the concerns- anonymous evidence means that people will give evidence against some scary people. Take that away and they will clam up and some very dangerous people will walk free.
But I think that, on balance, the right to a fair trial should take precedence over the conviction rate for any crime. There should be extra steps taken to allow people to give evidence in safety, and more circumstantial evidence should be allowed to tip the balance (particularly in sexual assault cases), but I don't think that anonymous evidence should be allowed.
All it will mean is that people with a beef against someone can frame them. Juries will side with the witness against the defendant, the defendant can't ask the right questions, and people get sent down when they did nothing wrong.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
At the end of the day witnesses can still be cross-examined by either party. Surely their testimonies will be scrutinised the same regardless of whether their identity is known? However there must be a sizeable amount of people who simply think the risk of testifying against known thugs or mobsters is just too great if their identities are made known.
Having said that, I would expect thorough checks are made on the witness to ensure they're not just some random bloke planted to influence the trial. How to best achieve this is the the trick question, I guess...
how can you cross eamine a witnes whom you do not know the identity of, it could be anyone quite frankly
if they want people to give evidence, they should provide a proper witness protection scheme, it'll cost more but it'll preserve a fair trial otherwise it's just a prosecution on say so
it didn't work in the 70s with supergrasses and won't work now - if there was a way such that the witness could be cross examined properly, i'd say yes, but complete anonymity can't be allowed, you might as well disallow the defendant access to the evidence gainst them too and make the trial secret too
Supergrasses weren't anonoymous - they had to stand up in court and let everyone know who they were. Which is why so many of them retracted - you may get a put in a witness protection programme, but there's a hell of a lot of pressure put on parents, families etc (plus I'm not convinced it didn't work - the IRA never reached the heights it had before and ever after was riven by fear of informers. The Albert Ginger Baker basically decimated the UDA in the 70s. There's no doubt people are alive due to it.
That said I'm against anonoymous. If you need people to testify they need to stand up in court and if needed you can move people and their families into witness protection. It aint perfect - it's costly, people don't like being up-rooted and you can never move everyone's friends and family to make sure they're all safe, but it's probably the best solution.
No one sees all the piecs.
Oh this is ok ...i aint doing nuffink.
When all the peices are put together ... it's fuking scary!:shocking:
Annonymous witnesses hs to be the ultimate olice state.
We're talking about wives and girlfriends, former gang members, drug runners e.t.c. who have all had a close relationship with some of the most vile people on Earth and who need protection. How on Earth any of you think we'll be able to make any in-roads whatsoever into serious, organised crime, without being able to protect the lives and identities of witnesses is beyond me.
How any of you propose to tackle serious gangs who are involved in people traficking, gun running, drug smuggling e.t.c. without people on the inside willing to give evidence in return for police protection, again shows how naive to some of the horrors of humanity some people here can be.
Now because of this ruling we have the potential for some really sick bastards to be released or have their charges dropped. These are people who will kill you or your family for even considering giving evidence against them, and thanks to a bunch of idiots who live in the ivory-towers, they're free to ruin the lives of more people.
Anonymous witnesses can still be cross-examined, they can still be questioned and the information they give can often be verified by the testimony of other people, it's not like denouncing someone.
Proper police work, phone taps (which should be allowed in court), surveillance etc.
And no one here is suggesting that witnesses shouldnt be given protection, they should. But someone accused of a crime should also have the right to put forward a proper defence, if you have no idea who the person is how can you do that?
Define proper police work? Making use of informants perhaps?
Phone taps? If I had suggested anything like that a whole host of other people here would be saying this is a police state e.t.c. And we're talking about the heads of organisations here, the ones who organise things and don't dirty their hands themselves, the ones where you need a bit more than phone taps and surveillance to capture them.
And how far do you go to protect someone? We're talking about people who if they can't get to you, will go down the chain killing people who are related or connected to you, just to shut you up. We're not talking about thieves or car tax dodgers here.
And we're not talking about cases relying SOLELY on the evidence of one person. We're talking about cases that have a lot of circumstantial evidence (which kermit in particular advocates in his first post) which is tied together by the testimony of one person. Like I said before, you can't just denounce someone and expect them to serve time just because you don't like them. And if wife or girlfriend says "I saw Joe shoot Fred" and Fred turns up dead the next day, who's to disbelieve her?
Yes, they should make use of informants, but I would rather see the Police use witness protection rather than them be presented in court behind a screen.
Phone taps go on all the time, its just that they are not allowed in court, Liberty among other groups has suggested that they should be. This would allow for more evidence to be put forward.
I know this is to do with the Mr. Bigs, and they are hard to catch. But that doesnt mean we should do away with the right to a proper defence.
Anonyminity as well as protection is the only way to keep the flow of information coming.
I don't think the police would necessarily plant fake evidence in anonymous testimony, but it prevents the defence from properly and thoroughly testing the evidence. If the defendant's former business partner, who got screwed over and is out for revenge, is allowed to testify anonymously he can say what he wants and it cannot be challenged in court. The defence cannot allude to the witness' identity so they can't try and discredit the bitter old man out for revenge. It makes the evidence stronger and will convict more people.
Juries will side with the anonymous evidence, too, because the prosecution will try and tell them that the defendant is so dangerous evidence can't be given any other way. It inevitably makes the jury side against the defendant.
The police and CPS already take the piss with some witnesses giving evidence behind screens; several times professionally I've seen some bloke who's supposedly too terrified to stand up in court go round the back of the court building and start winding up the defendant's family ten minutes later. The CPS barristers ask for the screens because it strengthens the case- it makes the juries think that the witness is telling the truth more.
Some nasty people will be convicted under anonymous evidence, but what worries me is how many innocent people could get swept up in it. The police have had huge problems with falsifiying evidence and targeting the wrong person because of racial prejudice and nothing I've seen, personally or professionally, makes me think things have changed.
I think in cases which are as high profile as this, it's pretty difficult to send people to prison when they're being implicated as a major drug smuggler or human trafficker. I'd also like to think that a police officer wouldn't risk a case that has taken years to be built up by falsifying evidence when it can be obtained with a little patience. These are cases where all the circumstantial evidence points to the person being guilty, but they're untouchable until someone on the inside is willing to come forwards.
The law needs to be changed, either to allow (in law) anonymous testimony where a judge deems it to be necessary, or to allow circumstantial evidence.
I think in terms of civil liberties, allowing circumstantial evidence will lead to a huge can of worms being opened, and would be a much more damaging way to do things than allowing a small minority of people to keep their identity secret.
Allowing circumstantial evidence to be the decider in a trial will lead to far more innocent people being locked up than an anonymous witness ever will, especially when you consider that in a high profile case you won't just be relying on one anonymous witness.
more protection for witnesses, costs more but gurantees a fair trial
complete anonymity for witnesses means the defence can't cross examine in regards to showing they have an ulterior motive and can't be trusted, or that they are correct in the facts - it prejudices a trial too much for it to work
anonymity is allowed in cases where the anonymous witness isn't the deciding factor in a trial, that's okay
where the witness is the deciding factor, they have be able to be cross examined otherwise there's no way to defend yourself
if it's allowed which it looks like they'll do in an emergency law, you will see anonymous witnesses in non gang/murder trials
Which I hope isn't allowed to happen. However if we start allowing circumstantial evidence to decide things like rape cases and others we're going to see more people going to prison who really are innocent, and not just Mr Bigs who would be let off on a technicality.
yes i agree too with that, protection is the key i think here, not necesserily US style however
i almost wrote circumcised lol
If we could guarantee protection, with a system like the WPP in the USA then I'd be in favour of scrapping anonyminity in trials. But the UK is a small place, there aren't as many places for someone to hide, and I doubt we'd be able to maintain the infrastructure required to keep a whole network of witnesses hidden and protected.
when the government wants to fund something they always find a way, so finance isn't part of the question and you can't put a price on a fair trial
though the price on extra detention of british citizens is only £3billion it seems
wonder what northern rock would buy