Crown court - naming of witnesses
Discussion
If a case is being heard in Crown Court are the names of the witnesses the prosecution will be calling available to the defendant prior to the trial as per the seven day rule?
Afraid I need to keep details to the bare minimum on this one but the reason for asking is witness safety, not the other way around.
Afraid I need to keep details to the bare minimum on this one but the reason for asking is witness safety, not the other way around.
If you can show good grounds for the Witness to withhold such information then IIRC the witness need not be disclosed in advance. And their address can be withheld too, i.e. they state "live at an address known to the police".
If you want, I can have a bit more a search through Archie.
If you want, I can have a bit more a search through Archie.
The prosecution can ask that the name of the witness be withheld.
The Defence may claim this will prejudice their clients Art 6(1) Right to a Fair trial as they may not be able to show the witness is prejudiced, hostile or unreliable.
However, the court will need to balance their testimony against the risk to the accused against any risk to life, liberty and threat to the safety of the witness. The Witness would still be ID'd to the judge.
If there is an identifiable risk to the witness then in principle their ID can be justified, provided adequate safeguards are in place to protect the accused from unfairness.
I would say therefore the witness May well be able to be anonymous IF there is a risk to them. (This is from 16-68 of Archbold, Anonymity of Witnesses). Would assume that with evidence the judge can take a view on it, and protect the witness.
HTH.
The Defence may claim this will prejudice their clients Art 6(1) Right to a Fair trial as they may not be able to show the witness is prejudiced, hostile or unreliable.
However, the court will need to balance their testimony against the risk to the accused against any risk to life, liberty and threat to the safety of the witness. The Witness would still be ID'd to the judge.
If there is an identifiable risk to the witness then in principle their ID can be justified, provided adequate safeguards are in place to protect the accused from unfairness.
I would say therefore the witness May well be able to be anonymous IF there is a risk to them. (This is from 16-68 of Archbold, Anonymity of Witnesses). Would assume that with evidence the judge can take a view on it, and protect the witness.
HTH.
Used to be that when we took a statement from a witness, where it asked for the address we wrote "as recorded" and put the details overleaf.
I understood that the idea behind this was that under disclosure the accused was served with a copy of the statement minus the address.
Not aware of what the current practice is.
dvd
I understood that the idea behind this was that under disclosure the accused was served with a copy of the statement minus the address.
Not aware of what the current practice is.
dvd
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff