Justice works both ways.

The recent House of Lords decision effectively banning the use of witnesses giving evidence anonymously is clearly right, however inconvenient to the police and prosecutors. If the threat of intimidation or violence dissuades a potential witness from giving evidence that is a matter which must be directly addressed by the police and prosecution, not circumvented by a basic denial of fundamental common law principles. The whole concept is based on two unproven assumptions - that the defendant is guilty and will otherwise escape conviction, and that the witness is telling the truth. Our legal system denies both those assumptions - it presumes the defendant is not guilty until and unless the contrary is proved, and it allows the defendant the fundamental right to challenge the witness's evidence, which clearly is substantially compromised by not knowing who the witness is. I fear this Government - as it is wont to do - will produce some ill-thought-out and knee-jerk legislation, which will simply compound the problem. They should be looking at ways of creating an environment in which witnesses feel able to give evidence, rather than denying the defendant's rights.