IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Article 6 Human Rights Law
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
John Marsh |
Often in government/opposition/activist groups the particular aim in isolation put forward is "an excellent ideal" goal (not always, of course). So as I have not followed what "the latest" so not aware of the aim of the pre-recorded interview idea. I am guessing the idea, like anonymity / testifying behind a curtain is to assist a real victim give their evidence about a crime that is extremely distressing and soul distroying if the person becomes known to the public in general. So a good aim.
Problem is one objective is then promoted forgetting Article 6 and other objectives, that are already reasonably well served.
If all positions and the overall objective of true justice for all involved is maintained then solutions can be found that make it better for all.
For example, every testimony that is given evidential weight pre-recorded or not should be "checked out" to the satisfaction of the prosecution, the police, the defence and maybe another independent body to ensure that selected responsible individuals do delve into the testifying person's life to check all possible facts. For example, did the person really live at such and such a place at period stated, did they have contact with the accused and was there any reports at the time to doctors, schools or whatever. The person, if telling the truth in sincerity then kepts their anonymity but the court and jury gets "a certified accepted, substantiated facts list" and stated acceptance by prosecution, defence and independent body . Thus anonymity maintained but not just the person's word only. That has been the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. From my school years I was under the impression that now we were all educated we as civilised people did not go in for kangaroo courts, hearsay, and fantansy. Of course, I was wrong and mislead. We as a race are as stupid as ever.
So the government needs to also eliminate completely "you will be believed" and the testimony needs even "more than the current cross examination". Most crime is in fact an example in that all testimony and evidence is expected to be tested by objective evidence thus building a case by various facts. For murder and other crime cases at times fail because the police have failed to put the evidence together and thus even when the general sense by all is the accused is most likely guilty the case still fails.
So personally I am for all reasonable safeguards for all parties involved but at the same time nothing must be used to hide evidence. Now anonymity is used to hide the real person and their real circumstances thus in reality creating more criminals and crimes in that the complainant, the police, the justice department, the judge, the CPS and so on - all know the trial and the acceptance of a story from a witness "is perverting the course of justice" and they do nothing. Then often an innocent person (Or at least legally) is convicted by a jury who have been deceived and mislead.
So now we probably have more "kinda of organised crime" in the justice system than outside it, and if the new objectives do not address the overall goals in Article 6 then they are acting in the same way as other officals who assisted the mafia and such like. |
|
JK2006 |
And it states very clearly -
the right of the defendant to question prosecution witnesses
Since it does not specify WHEN or HOW I suggest that, if the defendant wishes to question a witness for a second or third time after the main (pre recorded) examination, that HAS to be allowed. And if the prosecution insists that is also pre recorded, the trial could be extended by weeks, months or even years if the defendant demands his or her right for a fiftieth or sicxtieth time when he or she thinks of further questions not previously addressed.
Or does the Government now limit the amount of questions a defendant is allowed to ask? Very tricky, Liz - I suggest you give up your current career and go back to your previous trade of seducing other womens husbands. |
|
Randall |
I was thinking the same, but you're post has beaten me to it. I'd also add that
"A defendant must have a reasonable opportunity to present his case in circumstances that do not put him at a substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponent. Kaufmann vs Belgium
And what was the government response to criticism of uncorroborated evidence? I forget the precise wording but it was something like Witness testimony, properly tested and cross-examined in court is just as capable of providing proof as any other kind of evidence." So is the government policy now that evidencenot given in court and restrictively tested and cross-examined is adequate to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
I would certainly hope and expect that this is challenged and found to be unlawful. |
|
JK2006 |
It is very clear that Liz Truss adaptations of trial laws (allowing pre recorded evidence) may breach this - at very least, I quote, a defendant has the right...
to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him
which now, surely, means that numerous witnesses for the defence can now also be pre recorded and produced in evidence, confirming the bad character of the claimant and detailing previous disgusting, disgraceful and illegal sexual activities by those claimants without the prosecution being allowed to cross examine them afterwards. |
|
|
|
|
