So much for witness protection

[Grumpmeister]

Yet again the Law Lords decide in the favour of the criminal. Now, despite the fact that it will most likely put them in danger they have decided that it is unlawful for a witness to give evidence anonymously. 

A £6m murder trial has been halted at the Old Bailey following a Law Lords ruling that it is unlawful for witnesses to give evidence anonymously.

Judge David Paget said the trial - of two men accused of shooting dead a 50-year-old businessman in east London - had been "derailed" by the ruling.

He told the jury: "You have heard evidence from a number of witnesses that you should not have heard."

The case, the first affected by last week's ruling, will be retried in 2009.

The Law Lords ruled that defendants in criminal trials had a legal right to know the identity of witnesses testifying against them.

But Justice Secretary Jack Straw said there was a real need for some witnesses to have their identities protected.

He vowed to change the law "as quickly as possible" to allow the right to anonymity to be restored.

Four witnesses had given evidence under false names and from behind screens during the two-month trial of the two men accused of killing Charles Butler in 2004.

And how much critical evidence in these cases will now not be available because the witnesses will be too scared to testify in court.

[Snoopy]

One can always rely upon our learned friends to fvck things up.

[Grumpmeister]

Is guarranteed income for their friends. Murderer's case collapses so he is let free. Later on he kills some other poor bugger and is arrested kicking the whole process off all over again. The lawyers are quids in with this system and we are the ones paying the price.

[Nick]

Are you suggesting that lawyers might have their noses in  a trough? 

Must ask my nephew, who is a QC.

Oh 

[Grumpmeister]

So hang on a moment, anonymous witnesses in trials are banned and then a couple of days later:

Detectives have finished their initial inquiry into "proxy" donations to Labour and have passed their findings to the Crown Prosecution Service.

A decision will now be taken as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge anyone over the donations, which totalled nearly £664,000.

Property developer David Abrahams gave the cash to the party in the names of other people, breaking electoral law.

Mr Abrahams has said he did not know he was doing anything wrong.

The rules state than donors must use their own names when giving more than £5,000 to political parties.

Gordon Brown promised the money would be repaid and insisted he knew nothing about the arrangement involving Mr Abrahams.

The affair led to the resignation of Labour's general secretary at the time, Peter Watt, who said he had known the money belonged to Mr Abrahams but did was not aware that rules had been broken.

Mr Abrahams had long given money to Labour and to charities but said he did not want the publicity associated with being a major political donor.

'Cooperate fully'

The Metropolitan Police have been investigating the donations since the end of last year. No arrests have been made.

Detectives have spent the past seven months working on the case

A police spokesman said: "We have had regular consultation with the CPS since the inquiry began on November 30 2007.

"It is now a matter for the CPS to consider the evidence, advise us on whether any further inquiries are necessary and whether any charges should be brought."

The Labour Party said it "has and will continue to cooperate fully with the police investigation into the matters referred to them by the Electoral Commission".

"We will not be providing a running commentary on these issues whilst the investigation is ongoing," a spokesman added.

Coincidence? 

[Snoopy]

No such thing as coincidence IMHO