[punky]

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.