Comment: Judges outside the real world

Jun 25 2008 Liverpool Daily Post

SOMETIMES, the law is, really is, an ass. It is, frankly, astonishing that vulnerable witnesses are set to be denied anonymity when they give evidence in court. Sadly, it is something in very real danger of becoming a reality.

For, while police chiefs and senior prosecutors are hoping to get the use of anonymous witnesses to be enshrined in law before Parliament rises for the summer recess, they face a race against time, thanks to a controversial House of Lords ruling last week.

That ruling not only opens the way for costly retrials and the chance for a host of infamous criminals to appeal against their convictions, it also sends a terrifying message to scores of would-be witnesses who are only prepared to speak out against crime if they are protected.

There are just 28 days to solve this mess. At such a moment, we should expect stern action from a Home Secretary. However, Jacqui Smith – speaking in Liverpool yesterday – was less than emphatic in her tone. The police may be happy the minister shares their frustration; in all likelihood, the public would have been happier if she could have displayed a little more leadership than recognising “a problem that we need to solve”.

The law will be changed before the December Queen’s Speech – that may be too late for those preparing to give evidence in trials. Some of those willing and able to speak out now may change their minds if they fear their own and their families’ safety may be at stake – and there would be few who could argue with their decision.

The Law Lords may say it has been a fundamental principle of English Law that a defendant should be able to see and challenge his accuser. One has to wonder whether these powerful decision-makers would reach the same conclusion if, rather than returning to their own sumptuous homes, they were living in a neighbourhood where those who gave evidence against thugs and killers were branded a “grass”. And one would have to conclude: Probably not.