A 'perjurer's charter'

Free Radical Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:46:23 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

I can do no better than cite the excellent article on anonymous witnesses by Geoffrey Robertson QC, published in today's Guardian.




Robertson points out that we did not allow anonymous witnesses during the Kray-Richardson gang era, nor in Northern Ireland during the troubles. He also observes that anonymous witnesses were used by the Star Chamber, which came to be detested by the people, and which was abolished in the Long Parliament of 1641.

The witness anonymity bill goes before Parliament this week.

tags: , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
A 'perjurer's charter' | 2 comments (2 topical)

Re: A 'perjurer's charter' (#1)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 01:28:52 PM GMT

I believe there should be safeguards, that Geoffery mentions.

But I know of a case personally, where a friend of my sisters may not have served time for, if anonymous witnesses had been allowed. Friends who were with the accused, who had been accused of GBH against a particular gang, saw that same gang throwing bricks through their windows to prevent them testifying to defend their friend.

I am struggling to come to a decision, but unlike 42 days, I can see a compelling case that this actually enhances habeas corpus.


Re: A 'perjurer's charter' (#2)

by aneurin on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:41:52 AM GMT

According to the BBC 'habeas corpus' is "a writ which requires a person detained by the authorities be brought before a court of law so that the legality of the detention may be examined." (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4329839.stm)

Whilst this has relevance to the issue of 42 days, by definition, once someone is actually on trial, the court is already examining the "legality of the detention". Whether the witnesses are anonymous or not has no bearing on habeas corpus whatsoever.


[ Parent ]

A 'perjurer's charter' | 2 comments (2 topical)