Jump to content

Should the accused -


observer

Recommended Posts

- have the right to know who their accusers are? :? Well it appears our Law Lords think so; having said that a case that relies SOLELY on evidence from anonymous witnesses cannot be described as fair. This has completely scuppered a current court case, where concerns about threats and intimidation by organised criminals has meant a reliance on anonymity for witnesses. A seemingly ireconcilable dilema at first sight; but our legislators have in their usual knee jerk fashion, jumped to the conclusion that anonymity is required, and are now rushing to change the law. :shock: Historically, it has been the hallmark of oppressive totalitarian regimes, to use hooded Quizlings to point out the guilty. :roll: However, there is a way of gaining the evidence from witnesses WITHOUT compromising a fair trial; and that is to provide a safe and secure witness protection programme - or would that cost too much money?! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
and that is to provide a safe and secure witness protection programme

 

Does such a thing really exist, and is it really right that those who give evidence should so have to change their lives as a result of giving evidence. Of course personal evidence should, wherever possible, not be the sole form of evidence to secure a conviction.

 

And of course it is not only witnesses who might be "advised" not to give evidence, it is the victims as well.

 

This is a very difficult and serious situation, no doubt leading to some very serious criminals getting off, or being released on a technicality despite actually having committed the crime for which they have been convicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the authorities know who these "heavys" are and what they get up to and how they evade capture and prosecution...... why not use ex-SAS soldiers to stick a bullet in the back of their heads down a dark alley?

 

There should be no place in society for scum

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think they should not allow annonymous witnesses except in the cases of criminals with previous history of witness intimidation.

 

hopefuly that should stop the career criminal from ever intimidatating for the fear they may loose this right in future and suffer the wrath of many unamed enemies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz, would that mean the SAS chaps would then have a "proper job"?! :lol::wink: Not sure it would take much for the mafia to work out who'd grassed on them and take them out, so what then?! :roll: Much safer to secure a new identity and home etc; if they can do it for the Bulger killers they can do for anyone, and it's all been done in S/Italy and the States before. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this ruling passes - your court system will be even more burdened with appeals from some really nasty people. I believe that the reason the ruling was in place was to protect the innocent.

 

Then again I am not completely sure people have not used this ruling to falsify evidence - but I would hope the system has good checks and balances before going into court.

 

Just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...