A start to tackling witness intimidation?
 

I've just been reading on the BBC site about the trial of the killers of the 2 Birmingham teenage girls. What I found particularly interesting was:

The trial has been marred by serious and consistent attempts to intimidate key witnesses, according to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The CPS and the trial judge took unprecedented steps to ensure that witnesses felt able to give evidence.

A number of legal firsts were set in the way the trial was conducted.

Some witnesses were given pseudonyms, had their voices electronically disguised and were hidden from the defendants in the courtroom.

Their true identities were not revealed to the defence.

I was always under the impression that the defence had to be given details about witnesses (except in some terrorist cases), so it seems like the law is finally addressing the issue of witness protection. Unfortunately, I await the killers appealing on the grounds that their human rights have been breached.

Re: A start to tackling witness intimidation?
 

The problem is that, especially where a crime is comitted within a small community, no matter what lengths you go to to disguise the identity of the witness, the nature of the evidence itself can often give away the likely identity of that witness to the intimidators.

Re: A start to tackling witness intimidation?
 

This is something which has given me to much thought.

Whilst, as I'm sure most people are aware, I have very strong views on Human Rights, I also believe that Justice should be served and that with Rights come Responsibilities and that those Rights cannot be abused to cause a negative effect on others.

This is what the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 says:

1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

[...]

3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

Now it doesn't *actually* say that the details of witnesses' names and so on should actually be revealed and article one also covers "where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice." so I'm not sure that actually concealing the identities of witnesses is a breach of Human Rights as such.

Ok, it's normally considered that information about witnesses can be revealed to allow the defence to challenge their veracity and trustworthiness etc, however there are already precedents in terrorist trials etc where to do so would compromise the possibility of a fair trial.

So, at the moment, my feelings are that the concealment of witnesses etc is *not*, per se, a breach of the defendant's Human Rights, especially when intimidation is involved, although I don't think it should become a matter of course and such proceedings should only be invoked where it is absolutely necessary to bring a case to trial.

Re: A start to tackling witness intimidation?
 

I've just watched a story on the Birmingham gang culture and it was scary :Yikes: :Yikes: :Yikes: A guy in our manor was jailed a few months ago for witness intimidation, he collard a witness coming out of crown court and offered him money to change his story so his brother would get off.

Re: A start to tackling witness intimidation?
 

I think those witnesses should be protected. I saw that apparently the non-convicts among witnesses were freely given that protection, the dispute arose because one of the witnesses was a convicted criminal with links to the accused.

The only reason the defence would want to know the witnesses names, and other personal information is to discredit their character, and has nothing to do with the evidence they are putting forward. They can argue the evidence, which is what cross-examination is for - not for character assasination... They don't need their personal information for that, only their written testimonies. I am not in favour of the character assasination in court which tends to happen when the evidence is too overwelming to compete against, so they rather just get it discredited.

What I am suprised that noone has mentioned (yet), was what seemed to me, to be an appalling way of bringing the witnesses to trial. I personally am not in favour of forcing anyone to do anything, except in the most extreme of cases. A murder trial might be extreme, but the level of violence the witnesses would face (and not the authorities who dragged them there), testifying against their will. A demand from a witness for an unreasonable sum of money to be a witness (are they compensated anyway?) is one thing, but a genuine fear of violence against yourself for testifying is quite another. They gathered DNA samples at the scene for witnesses' names and arrested them. There should be an overruling cause in case some witnesses demand money maybe, but certainly not in this case where the witnesses fears seem to be credible. The news didn't say how well the security precautions suited the witnesses. Certainly didn't make good listening to me.