Anonymity of witnesses
In the murder case of Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis at Leicester Crown Court in March, the use of anonymity for a witness set a legal precedent.
The murder investigation itself was marred by serious and consistent attempts to intimidate key witnesses. In the preparation of the case, the Crown Prosecution Service got together with leading counsel and police and agreed that an application would be made to the court to allow witnesses to be anonymous, in that they would not have to give their names to the court, they would have to give their evidence behind screens and, when they gave their evidence, their voices would be electronically distorted so that the defendants would not know who was giving evidence against them.
One of the main witnesses was granted total anonymity by the court, even though he was a known criminal. Only the prosecution and judge knew his true identity. Using the false name of Mark Brown, the witness became a “pseudonymous” witness, a phrase which was coined at the start of the trial. The jury, barristers and the judge all heard his real voice from the witness stand but a distorted voice was fed into the soundproof defendants` dock and into a separate annex court room where the public gallery and the press were stationed.
Although anonymity can be, and is, granted from time to time in court, this trial was unique in that it is the first time a witness whose credibility was challenged was allowed anonymity.
The precedent was viewed by the CPS prosecution team and the police investigative team as a positive move, believing that it would be very helpful in the future for crime detection as it would hopefully encourage people to come forward and give evidence in future.
The solicitor for two of the men convicted of the murders has said they plan to appeal, arguing that the trial was unfair. Their reasoning is that, if someone is accusing somebody of something, especially a matter of such serious gravity as murder, the identity of the accuser should be known, to allow the motives of why that person is giving evidence to be investigated.