Criminal cases suspended after Lords anonymity ruling

Maat · (#1 (**permalink**))

By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
Last updated: 8:08 PM BST 24/06/2008

Dozens of criminal cases have been suspended following a "catastrophic" House of Lords ruling against the use of anonymous witnesses in trials.

PA
Charles Butler, the businessman who was gunned down in 2004Prosecutors ordered every case involving anonymous testimony - including murders and serious crime - to be adjourned.

It came after the £6 million Old Bailey murder trial of two men accused of shooting east London businessman Charles Butler was dramatically halted as a result of the ruling.

Another trial being heard in Newcastle was also on the verge of being suspended.

Ministers were engaged in urgent negotiations over new emergency laws to counter the impact of the judgement, which threatens to scupper a series of prosecutions.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, were holding talks with Opposition leaders to help push through new laws before the Parliamentary summer recess.

Only 28 days remain for legislators to find a solution - by passing a law which would effectively overrule the senior judges' decision - before the House rises for the holidays.

The dramatic developments came after a senior police officer told The Telegraph last week that dozens of Britain's most dangerous criminals could be freed from jail after the potentially "disastrous" ruling by senior judges.

Up to 40 individuals already convicted of murder or other serious crimes could appeal and walk free if the witnesses refuse to reveal their identity in a retrial.

John Yates, the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said the ruling was a cause for "grave concern" and called for the Government to step in.

One unusual possibility being considered by ministers is the use of an "Order in Council" - which is issued by the Privy Council and does not have to be subject to a parliamentary vote.

Miss Smith yesterday voiced her "frustration" at the Law Lords ruling and said she believed witnesses should be able to give evidence anonymously to ensure fair trials.

"This is something we are looking at very urgently. I accept there is a problem here that we need to be able to solve."

A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "We have asked our prosecutors to seek an adjournment on all cases using anonymous witnesses to assess the implications of the House of Lords' judgment in each particular case.

"We are still determining the precise number of live cases affected as a matter of priority'."

Story from Telegraph News:
Criminal cases suspended after Lords anonymity ruling - Telegraph

CashMoney · (#2 (**permalink**))

Black, white and Asian gangbangers must have had a party when they heard about this ruling. Three of those 'missing links' that killed Charmaine Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare are appealing and unless the witnesses are willing to reveal their names they could be set free

I always thought the House of Lords kept it real but obviously not

They thought there was a wall of silence beforehand. Good luck trying to get anyone to talk now. Would you trust 5 0 to protect you Maat? Nah, ddint think so either

BBC NEWS | England | West Midlands | Mother defends secret witnesses

Maat · (#3 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by CashMoney

Black, white and Asian gangbangers must have had a party when they heard about this ruling. Three of those 'missing links' that killed Charmaine Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare are appealing and unless the witnesses are willing to reveal their names they could be set free

I always thought the House of Lords kept it real but obviously not

They thought there was a wall of silence beforehand. Good luck trying to get anyone to talk now. Would you trust 5 0 to protect you Maat? Nah, ddint think so either

BBC NEWS | England | West Midlands | Mother defends secret witnesses

Thanks for the Link Cash. It was the story I was originally looking for

.

I totally agree with you. If witnesses were still unprotected when they were under "protection" what will it turn into when these people are set free alongside all the freed peadophiles - not forgetting? Even more chaos. That's the whole idea. This ruling seems crazy but not surprising. I've been really considering what it is my taxpaying money is actually paying for and if this is the kind of thing that's going to be decided, then why is it I'm not being asked what I want that money to be spent on??

I don't think this will help solve the crime problem at all it will just contribute to it. I sense another exodus coming on.