Witness Anonymity
“Parliament should never legislate at the speed at which I am proposing unless it is convinced that there are overwhelming reasons for doing so, but I suggest to the House that this requirement is satisfied in this case. Anonymous evidence is these days fundamental to the successful prosecution of a significant number of cases, some of which involve murder, blackmail, violent disorder and terrorism. Such cases could be jeopardized if we do not quickly fill the gap created by their lordships’ judgment” . These are the words of Jack Straw who was the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. The House of Commons was discussing the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008. These discussions were based on the ruling which had been passed in the case of R v Davis . There is a basic common law principle that an accused should be given a chance to confront his accuser whom he should always know .
Due to emergence of advanced crimes, there has been an increased use in necessary protection measures which have even gone outside the statutory scope in order to protect vulnerable witnesses. The introduction of witness protection has come with its challenges. Like in the case of R v Davis the contentious issue that arose was whether the introduction of witness protection would affect the defense and hence interfere with the rights of the accused. In the case their Lordships agreed that the defense had been curtailed and that the conviction was unsafe. This common law principle is only qualified with a few exceptions which are to be expressly stated in a statute. In reaction to the challenges that faced the R v Davis, parliament went ahead and enacted the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 and afte...
... middle of paper ...
...they may appear in court and fail to give their testimony.
The Section on witness anonymity will surely face various challenges. For the time being it will help to protect intimidated witnesses if properly used.
References
1) Hansard source: HL Deb, 26 June 2008, c1597 (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2008-06-26a.1597.3)
2) R v Davis [2008] 3 WLR 125, [2008] UKHL 36
3) Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008
4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009
5) European Convention on Human Rights
6) Pointer v Texas 380 US 400, 405 (1965)
7) Kirby v United States 174 US 47, 55 (1899
8) Smith v Illinois 390 US 129, 131 (1968)
9) Duke of Dorset v Girdler (1720) 24 ER 238
10) Coy v Iowa 487 US 1012, 1015 (1988)
11) Crawford v Washington 124 S Ct 1354, 1359 (2004)
12) Alford v United States 282 US 687 (1931
13) R v Hughes [1986] 2 NZLR 129
14) R v Hines [1997] 3 NZLR 529
In summation, is can be identified in this paper that eye witnesses do not play a constructive role within the criminal justice system. This can be seen through a thorough discussion of the many issues portrayed through this paper. To conclude Schmechel et al. (2006) reiterates that statements this paper has presented and discussed;
The act of interrogation has been around for thousands of years. From the Punic Wars to the war in Iraq, interrogating criminals, prisoners or military officers in order to receive advantageous information has been regularly used. These interrogation techniques can range from physical pain to emotional distress. Hitting an individual with a whip while they hang from a ceiling or excessively questioning them may seem like an ideal way to get them to reveal something, but in reality it is ineffective and . This is because even the most enduring individual can be made to admit anything under excruciating circumstances. In the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights there is a provision (“no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” ) which reflects a time-honored common principle that no person is bound to betray him or herself or can be forced to give incriminating evidence. This ideology of self-incrimination has been challenged heavily over the past s...
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
Throughout the years, this clause has been very controversial. In the 2004 case, Crawford vs. Washington; Michael Crawford and his wife, Sylvia Crawford had approached a man by the name of Kenneth Lee. There had been alleged allegations that Lee had tried to rape Mrs. Crawford. In the midst of the confrontation, Michael Crawford stabbed Lee in his torso. Michael then claimed he only did it acting in self-defense because he thought Lee had just picked up a weapon and was going to attack him first. In the trial for this case, Mrs. Crawford declined to testify against her husband, and was not required to do so under spousal privilege. However, her testimonial statement was later used against her husband because the facts of her statement and the facts in his statements were a little different. Noticeably, whether Lee was armed and made an advance prior to his stabbing came into question. Mr. Crawford was charged with assault and attempted murder. He was found guilty. The court found Crawford guilty based on his wife’s recorded statements, describing the stabbing that took place that the prosecutors played in court. The statement contradicted Michael’s defense that he stabbed Lee in self-defense of his wife. After this incident, the Confrontation Clause was put into effect. It serves two purposes. First, it protects the defendant from statements made outside of a court being used against a person when they have no opportunity to test or challenge the alleged statement, and second the Confrontation Clause gives a defendant the oppor...
Subsequently, one of the main components of the procedural limitation is innocent until proven guilty, which brings about the right to a Grand Jury- a panel that determines whether or not there is a need to go to trial. As a result, a guilty verdict in criminal cases is determined with evidence that is sufficient and that must be proved “‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” (pg.131), so there is an immense need to increase the chances for the respect of “reasonable doubt” (pg.
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
Richey, W. (2003). Can a Defendant Be Denied the Right To Confront Witnesses? Christian Science Monitor , 2.
In Rolando’s novel, Rites and Witnesses, there are many intriguing characters that are very complex despite the dialogical writing style used. Although there are only conversations and recorded testimonies, these characters reveal a lot about themselves through their words. One of the most notable witnesses is John F. Goodman. John Goodman is a unique character in how not only is he calmer and rational while presenting his views, but gives more detail about racial tensions through the stories he unveils about Klail City’s hate crimes.
In relation to the express statutory exceptions to the general rule which is also known as ‘Reverse Onus Provisions’, i.e. one of the circumstances where an accused person bears the legal burden of proof in a criminal case, there is a possibility of these provisions falling foul of or being incompatible with Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that; ‘Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty a...
The collection, custody and preservation of forensic evidence is a vital aspect of evidence integrity, without proper adherence to these procedures, crucial evidence that could potentially have great impact on a court case could be rendered useless. In the case of criminal proceedings, a skilled defence lawyer will look to scrutinise every step taken by forensic practitioners’ involved within the case in regards to the continuity of the evidence, in doing this they attempt to undermine the practitioner’s ability to properly carry out strict evidence collection, protection and preservation procedures and also look to find fault in the techniques they used to carry out these procedures.
Ashworth A and Horder J, Principles of Criminal Law (7th edn, Oxford University Press 2013)
Child witnesses have provided a basis for controversy over the years in criminal justice. There are two main things that people worry about when it comes to having a child witness, one is the anxiety that is put on the child with regard to the traumatic experience and the other is dependability of the testimony. Child testimony has long been considered an important part of the case but what is to be done when there are questions regarding legal, ethical, and professional ways to interact with the children.
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
obligation is to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty, to guard
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...