Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Theodoric
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]
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.
|
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.