The accused have the right to confront, and to be confronted by, their accusers. The use of video links is arguably not compatible with that right. The use of screens and voice-disguising devices certainly is not.
As for the intimidation of victims, let those who would engage in such intimidation fear the law, and so be dissuaded.
Therefore, let the law be something to be feared.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What if those who engage in intimidation do not need to fear the law - because those they intimidate are afraid to testify against them, and there is no other evidence?
ReplyDelete"What if those who engage in intimidation do not need to fear the law"
ReplyDeleteQuite.
You pretty much have to be an undercover Police Officer to be allowed to give anonymous evidence in Scotland, and if you refuse to testify while in court than you will simply be found in contempt. If it works there, then why not here?
What if people who testify get beaten up, or worse, in retribution?
ReplyDeleteYou still don't get it, do you?
ReplyDeleteAnd if they can do without this in Scotland, then I don't see why we need it.
The secret Family Courts. The secret trials in all but name by the CPS. And now this. Whatever happened being seen to be done?