Those who criticize the judges for upholding what is clearly jurisprudent ignore the real issue. Who is responsible for the fact that today criminals can so easily intimidate witnesses? Thirty years ago cases of intimidation were negligible because laws against such were upheld by the police. Were!!

Steve, Sutton,

So the murderers have their identities and whereabouts protected but an innocent witness has to give his or her name and address to the Defence so they and their families can be intimidated or killed. Anyone think this loads the dice in favour of creeps?

Annabelle, Tavistock, UK

If the witness is a gang member how reliable is the evidence anyway? It could only be part of the evidence. If the witness is an old lady of good character the only person who benefits from knowing is the violent criminal who can threaten the family. Court can establish mental and visual health.

Bernard, Halifax, UK

Teresa, I havn't.seen it yet but will view it with an open mind. It's fiction but I assume well researched?

In the same spirit can I invite you to check the FBI websites

www.fbi.gov/page2/april07/gotti040207.htm

www.fbi.gov/page2/feb08/mafia_takedown020708.html

Nospace for more sources

John Goode, Welwyn Garden City, UK

Just a few points; the objective is not to ensure the conviction of the guilty, but must by its nature, only aid in conviction. only the word "fair" is 'absolute' therefore a balance IS possible between merely 'giving confidence' and ensuring a correct conviction.witnesses wont be anon to the judge.

david mills, Belfast, United Kingdom

What's it like living in an ivory tower?

Mike, Liverpool, UK

M Wilson of Bidache in France says: "I have nothing against fair trials as long as those on trial are hanged after the proceedings."

What a brilliant comment. Those on trial (as opposed to those found guilty) should be hanged regardless of the offence. Then we'd have justice.

John, London,

Dave from Broxbourne,

Generally, witnesses in family courts do NOT have anonymity - their identities are made known to all those involved in the case. They can be, and are, vigorously cross examined. I know - I have been doing just that for many years as a child care solicitor.

Stephen Mannering, Nottingham,

It is time for Police/CPS to prosecute without exception all those arrested who make any threats to the police themselves, complainants or witnesses. The warnings given in the past for such behaviour should stop. Prosecute, and such a criminal record will protect future witnesses from crims/ lawyers

alan, worcs, UK

Right to a fair trial.

Not in the secret family courts.

Just hearsay and the word of a social worker and you are in prison for nothing.

I witnessed the corruption all the way to Lord Justices, and now know the truth.

Lady Portia, London, UK

The Courts seem to have their reasoning right but what many ignore is that the European Convention merely sets out minimum rights. Magna Carta and the Bill of rights are the basis of our common law and are stronger by far than the Euro Convention. We should not water down our rights at all.

Shaun O'Connell, Portsmouth, UK

In some countries, intimidation of witnesses is routinely used to sabotage trials. In Trinidad it is such a serious problem that many trials are aborted through witnesses refusing to testify, and those who do so are often murdered pre trial. How does the state deal with murderers in these situations

Rodney, St. George, Barbados

It is foolish to think the court would allow an anomymous
witness to lie under cross and they would be challenged as usual. . A witnesses bona fides would have had to have been made known to the court and any possible corruption of his evidence to the jury also. Just as now.

Richard, Peckham, UK

Next time I intend to look the other way.

JB, Nantwich,

The European Convention was not handed down by God on High. When found wanting - as it is in these circumstances - it can be amended. Or denounced. As to the idea that Judges will 'never' allow crucial witnesses to be anonynmous - well they DID DO for years up to Court of Appeal level. Rightly

Rhys Burriss, Lisbon, Portugal

I can envisage an anonymous witness providing false evidence against an innocent party, because they are so terrified of the person they know to be the real culprit.

Chris W, Kendal,

Well said. The House of Lords is made up of people who are experts in the issue of justice. It is plainly daft to ignore what they say. I get the impression however that this govermnet is all too eager to do so.

Simon, Birmingham, Uk

Even to the simplest of individual it must obvious anonymity can lead to unsafe verdicts. As for the hanging comment, there have been far too many "safe" guilty verdicts later found wrong to ever justify its use. Think cot deaths!

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

In real life, criminal gangs can control a local area and remain invulnerable to the law. Even witness relocation imposes unacceptable hardship. Anonymous evidence does contravene Common Law, but I have yet to see an acceptable alternative. Dirty Harry, where are you?

Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth,

John, you clearly have not seen "The Wire"! It is very difficult to get a wire "up" on any "detail". Also, "gangs" are only to aware of the possibility that they may be tapped and don't disucss criminal activity on the phones!

Teresa, Belfast , Antrim

The problem stems from the inability of witnesses to defend themselves. The criminals are armed, and the witnesses are defenceless. There are too many of them for the police to protect.

Until people are given the means to defend themselves, we will lose more and more of our civil liberties.

Bishop Hill, Scotland,

it seems worrying that this anonymity has been allowed in recent years

joe, london,

I have nothing against fair trials as long as those on trial are hanged after the proceedings.

M Wilson, Bidache, france

Agreed David. We should not be eroding a basic civil right when there are other alternatives. Why don't we look at how the FBI successfully took down the Mafia. They used witness relocation and intercept evidence. For gangs in this mobile phone age intercept evidence could be critical

John Goode, Welwyn Garden City, UK

One solution might be to give defendants a choice - they may insist on knowing witnesses' identity or may waive that right.. But if any identified witness or their family is then threatened or harmed, the accused is automatically held responsible unless they can prove their innocence.

Ross, Germany,

Perhaps it would be timely to review the issue of secrecy surrounding family law courts. Without putting children at risk it should be explored how this is being abused by some legal professionals who plunder the legal aid system. There again this would rely on the Law Lords in Walter Mitty Land!

Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England

Agree completely. It is impossible to guarantee a verdicts safety when evidence is given anonymously. The idea is ludicrous. The defence cannot cross examine, and how do they then contest this evidence, as they have a fundamental right to do? Magna Carta dealt with this sort of issue!

Jacqueline Dalrymple, Robigana, Australia