R v Davis
A conviction based solely or decisively on the evidence of anonymous witnesses, whose identity the defence could not test, was unfair.
Facts
Iain Davis was tried for the murder of two men shot at a party in Hackney, London. The prosecution case depended on the evidence of three witnesses who identified him as the gunman. They said they feared for their lives if their identities were revealed, so the judge allowed them to give evidence anonymously, behind screens and with their voices distorted, and prevented the defence from asking questions that might reveal their identities. Mr Davis was convicted.
Legal principle
The House of Lords quashed the conviction. Under the common law, a defendant has a right to be confronted by his accusers, so that he can test their credibility, and the protective measures in this case had hampered the conduct of the defence in a way that made the trial unfair, because the conviction was based solely or to a decisive extent on the evidence of the anonymous witnesses. Lord Bingham said that it was a long established principle of the English common law that the defendant should be confronted by his accusers. Parliament responded within weeks by passing the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, which set out conditions for witness anonymity orders.
Related cases on criminal justice, evidence and appeals
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354, [2007] 1 WLR 1657
- R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
