Queen ready to give Assent to Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill - Rush to judgement - Liberty be damned !!!!

The preamble to the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill says it all ...

New rules relating to anonymity of witnesses
(1) This Act provides for the making of witness anonymity orders in relation to
witnesses in criminal proceedings.
(2) The common law rules relating to the power of a court to make an order for securing that the identity of a witness in criminal proceedings is withheld from the defendant (or, on a defence application, from other defendants) are abolished.
(3) Nothing in this Act affects the common law rules as to the withholding of
information on the grounds of public interest immunity.

The full html text of the Bill is here the full parliamentary history from 4th July to Royal Assent (probably tommorrow) is here. Explanatory notes are here.

This is what war criminal Jack Straw said when introducing the Bill Hansard 8 July 2008 : Column 1304

"There has been an intensive period of consultation since my statement, the product of which is reflected both in the Bill as introduced and in the Government amendments standing in my name. I am very grateful indeed to the spokesman for the official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for the constructive approach that they have adopted in the course of the consultation. In the intervening period, too, we have sought the most up-to-date information available from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the scale of the use of anonymous witness evidence. "... ie it's all stitched up and the MP's have been told to shut up.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con) said inter alia (and to his credit) ..."we do not want to encourage lazy policing, lazy prosecuting or an informal process to emerge under which such orders become the norm" , of course not, but that is what we have had and what we will have more of, and there is nothing to stop it.

The only change made was to institute a so called "Sunset" of 31 December 2009, but orders can continue .....(b) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’. Which makes things even worse ... what should be a judicial decision will become a political decision, thus blurring the control of the Judiciary.

In the Lords , God Bless her Ann Mallalieu expressed her misgivings about the speed of legislation, the slow slide to it's use in magistrates courts and the fact that the bulk of outstanding cases was not to protect public witnesses but state witnesses. This Bill as she points out is " is an attempt to validate retrospectively those 580 cases (!!!) in which it seems, as a result of Davis, that unlawful orders have been made."

It is worth pointing out that Clause 12 (1) a of the Act ..."Interpretation
In this Act— “court” means— (a) in relation to England and Wales, a magistrates’ court, the Crown Court or the criminal division of the Court of Appeal;

Reminded by Baroness Butler-Sloss that Liberty, which has nothing to do with political parties, does not object in principle to the Bill, " she replied that she did ..." My Lords, I am very much aware of that. I have read the helpful briefing that Liberty has sent, but I disagree with it."

Geoffrey Roberston , QC in the Guradian on the 8th July There can be no fair trials with this perjurer's charter said ....

Parliament will this week be asked to make the most serious single assault on liberty in memory. The witness anonymity bill abolishes the right of defendants to know the identity of their accusers. This will result in thousands of unfair trials; and the principles of open justice, which this nation has contributed to the lexicon of human rights, will be gutted by a panic-stricken measure that encourages courts, in criminal cases of any kind, to suppress the identity of crucial witnesses.

He adds that safeguards have been overlooked or dismissed ..

There are no safeguards for the citizen. The prosecution does not even have to prove that a witness has been intimidated or fears any kind of mental or physical threat: any "harm to the public interest" is sufficient - a formula that might cover up questionable police operations. There is no safeguard against a conviction relying entirely on the evidence of an anonymous witness; incredibly, this bill does not require judges to ensure corroboration (independent evidence pointing to guilt), or even to warn juries about the dangers of convicting on the word of witnesses who can't be effectively cross-examined. There is no right of appeal against the granting of anonymity orders.

He also points out that war criminal Jack Straw makes false claims under EU HUman Rights Legislation

The Bill is prefaced by a statement from Jack Straw that it conforms with the European Convention on Human Rights. It does not: article six of the convention says that "everyone charged with a criminal offence" has, at minimum, a right "to examine or have examined witnesses against him" - and you cannot examine a distorted voice.

So MP's were silenced by a behind the chair deal, Liberty led by their pretty (ex?) Home Office Lawyer who is so concerned to defend Freedom with David Davis has no problem with the principles in the Bill.

The Press have been silent, so the public have been unaware of the progress of this Bill and it has been left to the old war hoses opf the legal left geoffey Roberston and Ann Mallalieu to try to stop the State's juggernaut.

The CPS say they have over 550 criminal cases in the pipeline (our resourceful rsearch staff cannot find this report - it is not on the CPS website) requiring the use of anonymous witnesses which is astonishing.

Now this device can be used in Magistrates courts - where you can be certain it will be used.

We have done out little bit .. Tuesday, June 24, 2008 Rush to judgement for anonymous trial witnesses...wronging a Right....more hastily prepared laws restricting ancient Common Law Rights
Thursday 26th June 2008 - War Criminal Jack Straw and Conservatives and Lib Dems stitch up to breach of common law rights in allowing anonymous witnesses in criminal cases
Thursday, June 26, 2008 Lord Thomas of Gresford QC for Lib - Dems slams War criminal Jack Straw's proposals on witness anonymity
Saturday, June 28, 2008 10 cases where anonymous witnesses helped secure a conviction

Curiously the world of blogistes has been remakably silent on this one.....

Rush to judgement for anonymous trial witnesses...wronging a Right....more hastily prepared laws restricting ancient Common Law Rights

Well here IS a surprise. Justice Minister Maria Eagle (never voted against the Government) is reported by the BBC saying that as a result of the succesful Davis appeal which rules out the use of anonymous witnesses except where provided for by current legislation : "We're looking very urgently at the implications of the judgement. "

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "I certainly accept, and I said some time ago, that there is a problem here that we need to solve."

"We are working now... to look at what we need to do to put this right."

The justice secretary, war criminal Jack Straw, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he could put anonymous evidence on a statutory footing before December's Queen's speech.

"I'm looking at this as we speak," he said. "Ever since this judgment on Wednesday this has been my major preoccupation - to ensure that we are able to change the law as quickly as possible."

""We are working now... to look at what we need to do to put this right." said kebab chomping Jacqi Smith ...Oh no she isn't. The Government want to chang / mangle / destroy the common law that has survive for centuries to provide cover for the scret stitch up between the CPS and the Police, in defiance of the Common Law by allowing witnesses not only the cover of screens, but also anonymity, voice modulation and secrecy about their names, occupations, addresses. Thus denying the defendant the chance to truly test the accusers evidence and reasons for it.

Shock and Horror, scream the headlines .... a £6 million murder trial was halted at the Old Bailey today .

Common law and uncommon practices

It is now apparent that the Police and CPS lawyers had become so cocky in skipping round the Common Law. Misleading juries by preventing proper cross examination of witnesses. Making the job of obtaining evidence by the Police and case preparation by the CPS lawyers much easier. There are now at least 44 trials halted in their tracks, and a substantial number who will as a result of the Davis judgement, be subject to appeal .. and then a possible re-trial.

LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD @ Para 66 of the Davis Appeal Judgment said ..." ..If, .... the government now think it right to legislate in this field, so be it. Meantime, however, the creeping emasculation of the common law principle must be not only halted but reversed. It is the integrity of the judicial process that is at stake here. This must be safeguarded and vindicated whatever the cost. "

LORD CARSWELL @ Para 51 quoted the consequences identified of anonymity spelled out by Judge Ackermann in the South African case of State v Leepile (5) 1986 (4) SA 187, 189:

"The consequences to the accused of such a wide direction are, inter alia, the following:

(a) No investigation could be conducted by the accused's legal representatives into the witness' background to ascertain whether he has a general reputation for untruthfulness, whether he has made previous inconsistent statements nor to investigate other matters which might be relevant to his credibility in general.

(b) It would make it more difficult to make enquiries to establish that the witness was not at places on the occasions mentioned by him.

(c) It would further heighten the witness' sense of impregnability and increase the temptation to falsify or exaggerate."

Which , when considering the credibility of witnesses who frequent nightclubs in the early hours and are involved in the fringes of drug dealing and criminality, or who may be paid police informers on paint ball expeditions of brown men with beards, or help brown men with beards buy allegedly bomb making chemicals etc., etc., must be taken into account by a jury.

This is Gemma Garrett s latest Speech in her race for the seat of Haltemprice and Haydon - catch up with her Blog She will be speaking about David Davis's limp performae on You and Yours BBC 4 today which you can hear here. In which the surprise Studio guest was Gary Hindle (?) from the Royal United Seervices Institute, that fair minded bunch of Right Wing bastards and (fully paid up) members of the LadyDame Jane Pauline Baroness Neville Jones an Club for whom 42 days detention without charge is is nowhere near long enough.

As Lord Patel explained to Gemma over a cool, refeshing and relaxing glass of non post coital orange juice, his Nanny used to say..." Well Teddy, they must be very bad men, or else the Policemen wouldn't have taken them away".

Incest - Germany considers a mediaeval law that punishes sibling sex

Incest is probably a universal taboo. "Coitus between relatives" is illegal in German law and punishable with a fine or a jail sentence, as it is in most countries.. it also has overtones of the Nazi german racial purity laws.

There is currently a case before Germany's Federal Constitutional Court which it is currently mulling over, that is causing a great deal of re-appraisal and fevered public discussion of the current state of the law for over 12 months in Germany.

Must consensual sex between close relatives be punished? Germany's highest court is about to rule whether incest will continue to result in a jail term. The case involves siblings who have had 4 children together.

Patrick S. was born in Leipzig (then in E Germany) in 1976, the second of five children. His sister Susan K. was born eight years later, and he didn't meet her until he was 23.

Father was a violent alcoholic. When Patrick was 3 his father grabbed him and held a knife to his throat. Neighbors called the police and Patrick was taken into care before being handed to foster parents near Potsdam.

When he was 23 he went to the youth welfare office to find his real mother. A few days later she contacted him.

On May 20, 2000 he travelled to Leipzig to see his mother again for the first time in 20 years. His parents had separated long before and the mother had a new partner. The three other siblings have since died, and the 16-year-old girl staring at him wide-eyed across the living room table was his sister, Susan.

Unexpectedly and suddenly , on December 12, 2000, the mother died.

Susan became pregnant with Patrick's child and their relationship became known to the authorities. They have been prosecuted repeatedly as other children have arrived although Patrick had a vasectomy in 2004. Currently their first son E,is in the care of a foster family was born 2 months premature and has epilepsy, and two other children were also placed in care. One of them S, has "special needs".

Patrick S. has served a jail sentence of more than 2 years because he fathered his sister's child, and he may have to go back to jail for at least another year.

The key issue is whether the protection of a powerful moral taboo is sufficient justification for punishment. And whether there are reasons beyond that taboo for locking someone up, for depriving children of their father, a woman of her partner.

Some 2-4 % of the population have "incestuous experiences", according to an estimate by the Freiburg-based Max Planck Institute. There are fewer than 10 convictions for incestuous sex in Germany per year.

Incest trials usually involve a father's abuse of an under-age daughter, which is punishable under a separate law on abusing minors. Even cases of incest between siblings that come to trial are usually based on sexual abuse charges.

But social research shows that incest is more likely to be the result of family problems than the cause. Eugenic aspects, which the German statue book cites regarding sibling incest, are a poor justification for punishment. The risk of hereditary disease for offspring also exists with other people with genetic defects. Yet the German constitution, or any other, would scarcely forbid such people from having children.

Some legal systems no longer criminalize adult incest. The French Criminal Code removed its incest prohibition in 1810, and other countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, Argentina, Brazil as well as a few other Latin American countries and several U.S. states have followed suit.

In the UK the Sexual Offences Act of 2004 in a little noticed change amongst the wholesale review instigated by David Blunkett, in fact went the other way and updated incest offences to cover not just blood relatives but also foster and adoptive parents and live-in partners. ...which brought it into line with Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Act 1986 (c. 36). The UK marriage laws of course prevent marriage between blood relatives and also between adoptive parents.

We need this law against incest in Germany and in the whole of Europe," said Professor Juergen Kunze, a geneticist at Berlin's Charite Hospital.

"It is based on long traditions in Western societies, and the law is here for a good reason," said Prof Kunze.

"Medical research has shown that there is a higher risk of genetic abnormalities when close relatives have a child together. When siblings have children, there is a 50% chance that the child will be disabled," he said.

So far there has been no decision but the vice-president of the Constitutional Court said that there will be a 'fundamental discussion' about this issue in Germany.

Newspapers covered this story in the UK - Guradian The Independent Daily Mail their comment columns provide an interesting insight into what is/is not considered socially acceptable.

...and yes ... book deals , TV /Film rights are being negotiated..

UPDATE Thursday March 13th 2008

Germany's Constitutional Court, the country's highest judicial body, ruled today that incest in Germany violates the country's Basic Law. The judges rejected a petition by Patrick K. to overturn previous incest convictions.