Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Anonymity destroys justice

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Anonymity destroys justice

    A trial has been halted as a result of the recent Law Lords ruling.

    The Lords said that anonymity of crucial witnesses prevented the accused from having a fair trial. Today a Crown Court judge halted a trial because, he said, the jury could not be expected to discount the evidence presented by anonymous witnesses. The trial would therefore, as the law stands, be automatically unfair and any conviction overturned.

    The idea of witnesses being able to give evidence completely anonymously has always bothered me. English jurisprudence is very much dependent on the ability of the parties to test the evidence of the witnesses in cross-examination.

    I've seen both my clients and the other side putting forward evidence that is plainly nonsense (i.e dishonest and untrue). I would expect a decent advocate to expose that in front of judge (and jury). But a lot of the evidence is context. Your questions will change, depending on whether you are cross examining somebody who happened to be walking past at the time in question or somebody who lives next door to the accused and has been having a neighbour dispute with him for years. It would be like trying to shoot at a target while blindfolded and without knowing what it even looked like.

    There is, of course, a problem with witness intimidation, and convictions in the face of such intimidation are clearly harder to obtain. But Jack Straw's knee-jerk reaction to the Lords' decision, that he will change the law ASAP, is distressing because it isn't the right answer.

    Just because a solution to a thorny problem presents itself, does not mean that it is the best solution, or even that it is a good solution.

    The point to remember is that until after the trial, the accused is only the accused; it isn't until after the verdict that he becomes the guilty party; and if the process by which he is declared guilty is flawed, then nobody benefits.

    Except Group 4, perhaps.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Zurich
    Posts
    1,060
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    It seems to me that perjury would destroy justice and anonymity MIGHT make it easier for someone with an axe to grind to commit perjury.

    It also seems to me that witness intimidation would also destroy justice.

    It is in nobodies interests that inoccent people go to prison nor that guilty people go unpunished/reformed. The idea that some guilty people may walk free is the price that society is prepared to pay when we set up the system of law so that the burden of proof is to be "beyond reasonable doubt".

    What we are talking about here is LAW. Law is the best that people can formulate in the pursuit of being able to achieve justice.

    So we will have to go back to the system where witnesses and their extended families will have to be relocated and protected until they have given evidence and then all given new identities/homes/jobs after the trial.

    At some point we may have to stop looking for perfect solutions in an imperfect world.

  3. #3
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    It's about time we strapped a few of these so-called 'accused' criminals up to lie detectors. If it's good enough for Jeremy Kyle and Jerry Springer it should fit in nicely with our "lock 'em up without a trial for quite a while" type justice system. Hanging's too good for them!

    Jerry... Jerry... Jerry... Jerry... Jerry... Jerry...........

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    It's about time we strapped a few of these so-called 'accused' criminals up to lie detectors. If it's good enough for Jeremy Kyle and Jerry Springer it should fit in nicely with our "lock 'em up without a trial for quite a while" type justice system. Hanging's too good for them!

    Jerry... Jerry... Jerry... Jerry... Jerry... Jerry...........
    What lie detectors would they be then? Not the polygraph?

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    3,166
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    What lie detectors would they be then? Not the polygraph?

    This looks a lot more reliable

    History of Lie Detector Invention and Evolution


    The accused would hold a red-hot iron in his hands or remove a ring from a pot of boiling water after which the judges would wrap and seal the hands. Innocence would be shown by a complete lack of injury three days later.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by philsmove View Post
    So if she's a witch she's made of wood?

  7. #7
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    So if she's a witch she's made of wood?
    If she's not a witch she's made of asbestos

  8. #8
    Registered User Isis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,398
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    For some reason, I just love the fact that the lie-detector test was invented by the guy (William Moulton Marston) who wrote 'Wonder Woman'. That would explain her magic lasso of truth.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Isis View Post
    For some reason, I just love the fact that the lie-detector test was invented by the guy (William Moulton Marston) who wrote 'Wonder Woman'. That would explain her magic lasso of truth.
    Kudos! I never made that connection before.

  10. #10
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post


    There is, of course, a problem with witness intimidation, and convictions in the face of such intimidation are clearly harder to obtain. But Jack Straw's knee-jerk reaction to the Lords' decision, that he will change the law ASAP, is distressing because it isn't the right answer.
    Not sure what the right answer is

    I see the case in question has already had 4 anonymous wittnesses , that seems a bit OTT

    However how are you ever going to get people to Step forward if they can be seen. Although with all the empty flats re location looks like a good answer

  11. #11
    Registered User Poi Boi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Thornbury, Bristol
    Posts
    516
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    I can understand that cross examination of a witness is important, and that when the lawyer and jury are unable to see the witness, important visual clues cant be seen, and so a proper examination of the witness cant be done.

    I also understand that witnesses need protection. In cases involving gang crime/organised crime where the repercussions could result in the death of a witness ect, I can understand the witness choosing to remain anonymous. Witness relocation and protection is a very expensive business, and the idea of leaving everything behind and totally changing your life to just give a statement that may or may not result in a conviction, is not an easy decision to make.

    But this is what I dont understand. Witnesses feel the need to be anonymous and protected because they fear for their lives and the repercussion of giving a testimony, and this is usually the cases where organised crime/gangs are involved. If this anonymity is taken away, what will happen to the hundreds of violent criminals that would have a chance to be freed because a law lord said that a conviction based on anonymous testimony isn't valid any more.

    It does make me wonder, if this ruling would serve organised crime the most, should there not be an investigation into whether or not members of organised crime had any influence on this ruling? I wouldnt put it past them to lean on a law lord to get what they want, and so make a mockery of the justice system. This ruling leaves me very suspicious of the motives behind it, but also, afraid for the lives of those that feel they must do the right thing, and for the lives of those killed by the people who get away with murder, because they cause intimidation and fear.
    Last edited by Poi Boi; 25th-June-2008 at 10:38 AM.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Poi Boi View Post
    ...It does make me wonder, if this ruling would serve organised crime the most, should there not be an investigation into whether or not members of organised crime had any influence on this ruling? I wouldnt put it past them to lean on a law lord to get what they want, and so make a mockery of the justice system...
    No need for crimnal intervention, Governments do not like whistle-blowers, and granting witnesses anonymity would help some of them. OTOH the law Lords have vast experience and know the extent of vexatious testimony and false allegations. Also, organised crime has been known to organise false accusations to get the innocent out of their way.

    The essential question is "Why would a witness lie?". Who that witness is and their history is a vital part of answering that question.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London, United Kin
    Posts
    3,896
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    A trial has been halted as a result of the recent Law Lords ruling.

    The Lords said that anonymity of crucial witnesses prevented the accused from having a fair trial. Today a Crown Court judge halted a trial because, he said, the jury could not be expected to discount the evidence presented by anonymous witnesses. The trial would therefore, as the law stands, be automatically unfair and any conviction overturned.

    The idea of witnesses being able to give evidence completely anonymously has always bothered me. English jurisprudence is very much dependent on the ability of the parties to test the evidence of the witnesses in cross-examination.
    I do agree with most of what you say and that if you do not know who is giving evidence against you and if they can not be crossed examined it is unfair and unjust and goes against all principles of British justice of being innocent until proved guilty. My only reservation would be with organized crime and the intimidation, even the possible murder of witnesses.

    I do not think that there can be a completely satisfactory outcome and that either principles or possibly unsafe justice have to be sacrificed in a few cases.

    I’m glad that I am not the person to make these decisions

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxine View Post
    I do agree with most of what you say and that if you do not know who is giving evidence against you and if they can not be crossed examined it is unfair and unjust and goes against all principles of British justice of being innocent until proved guilty. My only reservation would be with organized crime and the intimidation, even the possible murder of witnesses.

    I do not think that there can be a completely satisfactory outcome and that either principles or possibly unsafe justice have to be sacrificed in a few cases.

    I’m glad that I am not the person to make these decisions
    I'm not at all convinced that there are that many cases of witness intimidation; it could well be a case where people are more fearful of the possibility than of the actuality. When I get some time I might see what I can find out.

  15. #15
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I'm not at all convinced that there are that many cases of witness intimidation; it could well be a case where people are more fearful of the possibility than of the actuality. When I get some time I might see what I can find out.
    Surely 'fear of' is as good as actual

    ie please come forward you only have a 1 in 10 chance of being knee capped

    However its back to balance , what did they do 50yrs ago ?

  16. #16
    Registered User Isis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,398
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Kudos! I never made that connection before.
    I'm a veritable mine of utterly useless information, my dear.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Isis View Post
    I'm a veritable mine of utterly useless information, my dear.
    I'd heard the Wonder Woman thing before but it was the brilliant linking of devices that force people to tell the truth that made me genuflect. I would have repped you but - although I haven't repped you for weeks - I wasn't allowed to do so.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Surely 'fear of' is as good as actual

    ie please come forward you only have a 1 in 10 chance of being knee capped

    However its back to balance , what did they do 50yrs ago ?
    I see your point.

    However, there are hard choices to be made in life. People who fear non-specific unpleasant consequences of giving evidence should not be comforted at the expense of a fair trial. Someone who has been told "If he's convicted your children will die" is in a very different situation. All I'm saying is that my presumption is that there are (in England at any rate) a hell of a lot more of the former than there are of the latter.

  19. #19
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I see your point.

    However, there are hard choices to be made in life. People who fear non-specific unpleasant consequences of giving evidence should not be comforted at the expense of a fair trial. Someone who has been told "If he's convicted your children will die" is in a very different situation. All I'm saying is that my presumption is that there are (in England at any rate) a hell of a lot more of the former than there are of the latter.
    So, someone is being tried for murder. Someone who the witness knows runs in a gang, habitually carries around guns or knives. And has a lot of friends who do the same. Who are known to be 'nutcases'.

    Personally, without the promise of anonimity, I'm not going to make a witness statement. Even if they haven't actually threatened me. Even if I saw what happened. I don't hate my life, my friends and my family enough to be relocated and identity changed and not see them again. And I don't like violence. Especially when it's being done to me!!

    Okie. Fair enough, in a dispute over where exactly the garden fence goes, I'm not worried. But we're not talking about those sort of cases, are we. I've not been in court cross-examining a witness who I can't see. But I have some sympathy with those witnesses who don't want to be identified....

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTramp View Post
    So, someone is being tried for murder. Someone who the witness knows runs in a gang, habitually carries around guns or knives. And has a lot of friends who do the same. Who are known to be 'nutcases'.

    Personally, without the promise of anonimity, I'm not going to make a witness statement. Even if they haven't actually threatened me. Even if I saw what happened. I don't hate my life, my friends and my family enough to be relocated and identity changed and not see them again. And I don't like violence. Especially when it's being done to me!!
    In that case, you and the other witnesses who feel the same way are going to have to put up with the crime that surrounds you. It may be a hard decision to be a witness, but people have to deal every day with deciding between the lesser of two evils. Some people have to deal with having their homes flooded, some people have to deal with losing their loved one in a road accident, some people have to deal with living in a high crime area.

    Look at the other ways in which civil liberties have been eroded in the last ten years: double jeopardy has gone, right to silence has been seriously eroded, and previous offences can now be cited prior to verdict. Just to pick three. My prediction is that soon the police will start to explain how jolly well hard it is to wrap up cases against non-terrorist organised criminals in 96 hours, and if it doesn't hurt terrorist suspects to be held without charge for 42 days, what will it hurt to keep OC suspects in for, oh, not too long - say 14 days? After all, we all want to ensure that the criminals are brought to justice, don't we?

    Pretty soon we'll be able to lock someone up as soon as the police have finalised their decision on who the prime suspect is.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Justice after all?
    By Gus in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29th-December-2007, 12:49 AM
  2. Miscarriages of justice
    By Barry Shnikov in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17th-October-2007, 08:09 PM
  3. Anonymity and the Forum (again)
    By David Bailey in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 4th-July-2007, 06:39 PM
  4. Anonymity and Identity
    By David Bailey in forum Geeks' Corner
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2nd-October-2006, 08:55 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •