This was in the news in the UK yesterday. I really don’t know how I feel about the decision and the implications of it. It follows the recent House of Lords decision in R v Davies.

My initial gut reaction was that it was a ridiculous decision. But then when you think about it more, you realise that actually, legally, there are some very good reasons for the decision being made in this way.

As just about everyone knows, in the UK (and most countries for that matter) there is a presumption of innocence whenever anyone is prosecuted for a criminal offence. That means that the CPS then has to provide evidence that the accused is guilty of the offence.

The legal advisors acting for the defence at trial have to have details of any evidence relied on by the CPS in Court. It’s long been established that a defendant has the right to cross examine his accusers.

Obviously, in some circumstances, witnesses will only give evidence if they can be anonymous. If you’re in fear for your life if you give evidence that is going to secure a conviction, you’re not going to give that evidence if your identity is going to be known to the defendant and people they know. It’s completely understandable.

But how does that weigh up against the right to cross examine the witness? If you don’t know who you’re cross examining, how can you do it properly?

To take an extreme example; imagine someone (let’s call him Bob) is on trial for murder. He was at a party, he has an argument with someone (Bill), and then Bob leaves. Bill leaves 20 minutes later; 30 minutes later he’s found in a side street and he has been shot dead. The police make enquiries and everything points to Bob having shot Bill, but it’s all circumstantial. There’s no hard evidence to say Bob did it.

Then Mr X comes along and tells the police he saw Bob shoot Bill. However, Mr X says he’s scared of Bob and his friends and that they will come after him if he provides evidence to say that Bill did it. And because of this, he will only give evidence against Bob if he can remain anonymous.

All sounds good, no?

Would your opinion change if you knew that Mr X was a drug dealer that Bill owed a lot of money? And if you knew that Bob had had an affair with Mrs X that ended with Mrs X leaving Mr X? If Mr X remained anonymous, Bob’s legal advisors would be denied the opportunity to investigate any grudge Mr X had against Bob. Granted, the police may pick up on these details, but what if they don’t? How can you be sure of the credibility and reliability of someone if you don’t know who they are?

But on the flip side - what if the only way to convict Bob is via anonymous witnesses?  What if it’s just conincidence that Mr X, Bill and Bob have connections with each other and Bob really did kill Bill?

Ultimately, what it comes down to is what is more acceptable; innocent people being convicted or guilty people being acquitted? Personally, I can’t decide between them. Obviously, if someone has killed someone, they need to be punished for it. But then you risk wrongful convictions.

Personally, I think that ultimately, anonymous evidence should be allowed, although there needs to be a way to exclude “grudge” evidence. How that can be done I don’t know. I don’t have the answer; I’m sure if I did I would become a minor celebrity in the legal world! Maybe if there was some way of an accused person of giving details of anyone he or she is aware of that may have a reason for providing “questionable” evidence, that could be cross checked by the CPS. That obviously has the problem of what if the accused doesn’t know the identity of people with such reason.

Ultimately it’s a hard one to call. I’m glad I’m not the one calling it.

So. I accidentally on purpose deleted the old blog that was here. So now there is a nice shiny new one for me to deface and defile. Fun stuff, defacing and defiling, you know.

I don’t really know what this will be used for just yet. I’m sure that, over time, it will evolve into something of use. I don’t even know if anyone will read it. But I will know it’s here, which is all that counts really I suppose.

At the moment, I’m supposed to be working. I say supposed to be; I’m not really as it’s Sunday. But I have work that needs doing, and I find it easier to do at home. I’m about half way through but as I am so easily distracted, I’m writing on here instead. Ahhh, procrastination, don’t you just love it?

Is procrastination a bad thing? I have a feeling that yes, it is. I put things off, I know I do. For no particular reason; it’s not like I don’t want to do those things, or that I don’t need to do those things. I’m just a badly organised person I suppose. There are these things I need to do, that I mean to do, but don’t. I keep meaning to get a tattoo - 6 years later my skin is still a blank canvas. I keep meaning to get pierced again - my last one was in 2003, so that’s 5 years of “thinking about it” gone. I need to get my brother put on my car insurance. Still not done that one. I need to clean my house. I need to do… all kinds of things.

I’m not like this at work, far from it. If something needs doing by next Thursday, it’ll be done by Monday. I guess because with that, it does actually need to be done, rather than needs to be done. If you get my drift. If you do get my drift, congratulations and here is your medal.

Wow. Rambly. And all in the name of procrastination.