IDIOTS: anonymous witness has her identity revealed by the court.

locutus12 · 4 Oct 2006 at 00:20

IDIOTS: anonymous witness has her identity revealed.

A woman who agreed to testify anonymously against gangs of anti-social youths has gone into hiding after her identity was revealed.

She was to give evidence about drug dealing and vandalism in her street and enable Liverpool City Council to serve Anti-social Behaviour Orders (Asbos).

full story plus video here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/5404008.stm

for christ sakes, its just insane...

"A council statement said it was "extremely regrettable" the woman's identity had been revealed.

But it said a certain level of detail has to be given to the court in order to prove that alleged incidents had taken place. "

utter bull ****. im sorry but **** like this ***** me off. what is the point of doing your civic duty these days.

Inquisitor · 4 Oct 2006 at 00:25

Am I reading this properly?

She agreed to give evidence providing that her details were not disclosed. The court then presumably agreed to this, she gave the evidence, and her details were subsequently released? That's ludicrous.

Mulder · 4 Oct 2006 at 00:29

What a fantastic precedent to set.

Rich_L · 4 Oct 2006 at 00:36

Reading the article it's a touch more complicated than that.

A council statement said it was "extremely regrettable" the woman's identity had been revealed.

But it said a certain level of detail has to be given to the court in order to prove that alleged incidents had taken place.

The council said it carried an element of risk and it was fully discussed with the family.

It would appear that her identity was not disclosed, but rather her age, the fact she was a woman, and the street she lived on were disclosed necessarily which unfortunately made it possible to identify her.

Now then, it becomes immensely difficult for the womans statement to be subject to scrutiny (which is of course an important part of the justice system) if you leave just one of those details out.

I think it's very unfortunate and the kids terrorising the poor woman should be subject to the full force of the law, but unless there has been a monumental, unforgivable ****-up by the prosecutors acting for the Council in neglecting to mention which details would be revealed, I would anticipate that this is not the fault of the criminal justice system but rather an unfortunate risk of being prepared to testify against individuals in court, which should have been fully explained to the woman prior to her agreeing to provide a testimony,

gib786 · 4 Oct 2006 at 00:37

its sickening tbh, a 62 year old woman in hiding from a bunch of scummy little ingrates, someone needs to sort those kids out

Inquisitor · 4 Oct 2006 at 00:58

Rich_L said:
Reading the article it's a touch more complicated than that.

It would appear that her identity was not disclosed, but rather her age, the fact she was a woman, and the street she lived on were disclosed necessarily which unfortunately made it possible to identify her.

Now then, it becomes immensely difficult for the womans statement to be subject to scrutiny (which is of course an important part of the justice system) if you leave just one of those details out.

I think it's very unfortunate and the kids terrorising the poor woman should be subject to the full force of the law, but unless there has been a monumental, unforgivable ****-up by the prosecutors acting for the Council in neglecting to mention which details would be revealed, I would anticipate that this is not the fault of the criminal justice system but rather an unfortunate risk of being prepared to testify against individuals in court, which should have been fully explained to the woman prior to her agreeing to provide a testimony,

Ah, I see. Makes a bit more sense now.

Deadly Ferret · 4 Oct 2006 at 01:03

gib786 said:
its sickening tbh, a 62 year old woman in hiding from a bunch of scummy little ingrates, someone needs to sort those kids out

Yes. Which is yet another example of the inadequacy of the efficacy with which our jurisprudence is managed; however, it would be barbarism to sort them out in any way other than force of law.

BrenOS · 4 Oct 2006 at 01:45

Sounds like a case of "Domingo from Little Oakley".

Skunkworks · 4 Oct 2006 at 02:11

IDIOTS: anonymous...

Is that like alcoholics anonymous?

Pookie Bear · 4 Oct 2006 at 08:59

Is this the case from last week where they turned up on her doorstep twenty minutes after the court closed with baseball bats and kitchen knives? They should have had a high-calibre MG nest set up in her hallway and just let them in.