From: Richard Barrett, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The arguments being presented to justify anonymity for Police
Officers giving evidence in court, even the Coroner's court, are
plausible but represents the thin end of a very thick wedge.
That wedge being: one set of rules for the ordinary citizen and a
different set of rules for employees of the state. Well we already
have that in respect to Firearms Law but let us not compound the
problem any further.
Surely the general principle is that people influencing a court's
deliberations declare their identify and give their evidence while
visible to the court, including members of the public and newspaper
representative that are present. Only in the cases of juveniles and
certain other specific circumstances defined in law are there
restrictions on identifying witnesses etc. Justice will not be done
or seen to be done by regularly allowing state employees, who it is
claimed are at risk as a consequence of being publicly identified,
exemption from this principle.
The fundamental guarantee that justice is being done is the ability
of the public at large to scrutinize the process. The ability of the
state to obscure public visibility over the process, however
plausible the arguments for so doing, can only serve to undermine
the public's confidence and increase the risk of real abuse by state
authorities. One only has to consider the abuses of Public Interest
Immunity certificates by the state in recent years that have led to
miscarriages of justice to see the nature of the problem.
It has been argued in this thread that the officers involved in the
Falmouth incident might be stigmatized or further traumatized by
being identified. That this is a material consideration says much
about the quality of training given to armed Police Officers and the
criteria used in selecting these volunteers.
But one has to ask if the Police and Home Office are prepared for
similar rules be applied to a member of the general public who
committed a homicide, i.e. anonymity at the Coroner's court and
continued anonymity if the verdict there was justifiable homicide. I
think not and rightly so.
--
That is the point, if the guy had pointed his air rifle at
a member of the public and been hit over the head with a shovel
or whatever, you can bet that member of the public would not
be allowed anonymity at the inquest.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
