Ethics Newsline®

Judiciary had allowed some secret evidence because of rampant witness intimidation; prosecutors worry that the most recent ruling could overturn scores of convictions

LONDON
A British court last week ruled that it is improper to allow anonymous evidence to be admitted into some criminal cases — a decision that worries prosecutors, who fear that scores of previous convictions may be thrown out.

Judicial officials in Britain had been pondering an extension of existing law allowing teenage witnesses to give evidence of gun crimes anonymously, reports the London Daily Mail. In addition, other government agencies had favored allowing the elderly and other vulnerable witnesses to give evidence in secret.

The ethics angle: While being able to confront one’s accuser is a traditional part of British law, prosecutors say that witness intimidation has become increasingly commonplace, especially among the poor and within gang-ridden neighborhoods. The London Evening Standard reports that some in the judiciary are willing to bend tradition in order to protect the vulnerable.

But as a report from the U.K. Press Association notes, civil libertarians worry that witnesses who do not have to face cross-examination could concoct stories that lead to convictions based on false evidence from people seeking revenge or having other axes to grind.

John Yates, the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, says last week’s ruling backing the right to confront accusers is “potentially disastrous” because it may prompt many appeals by dangerous convicts, reports Sky News.

Sources: U.K. Press Association, June 21 — Guardian, June 21 — London Daily Mail, June 20 — London Evening Standard, June 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, June 16 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, July 16, 2007 — Related Newsline story, July 2, 2007.