STRAW GIVES GO-AHEAD TO CONVICT CRIMINALS ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE

HEARSAY evidence is to be made admissible in criminal trials in an attempt
to convict more drug dealers and sex offenders.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, hopes that the radical changes to one of the
oldest and most fundamental rules of English justice will mean an increase
in successful prosecutions of serious criminals, many of whom intimidate
witnesses.

But the proposals, contained in a draft Bill to be published this summer,
were attacked last night by lawyers and civil liberty campaigners as a
dangerous erosion of the rights of defendants.

Under the changes, written evidence from frightened or intimidated
witnesses, those who have died or are too ill to attend court, or any other
hearsay evidence from absent witnesses that should be admitted "in the
interests of justice" will automatically be admissible in court.

The recommendations of the Law Commission overturn part of the so-called
hearsay rule which lays down that, with some exceptions, a witness must give
evidence at a trial in person. That is because unless a witness is
cross-examined, the fact-finders - in most cases the jury - will be less
able to decide whether the witness is telling the truth. In addition,
testifying to what someone else said is often dangerously inaccurate.

In the case of frightened witnesses, the written statement will not need, as
now, to have been made to a police officer to be admissible, and witnesses
who started giving evidence but were scared into stopping would be able to
put in a statement instead.

Mr Straw said: "The Government considers the Law Commission's report a
thorough and comprehensive review of the law on hearsay evidence. They have
concluded that the proposals will simplify the law and enable more evidence
to be deemed admissible, while maintaining proper safeguards to protect the
interests of the defendant. The Government has decided to accept all the
recommendations in the report."

But John Wadham, from the civil liberties group Liberty, said: "The Bill
going to Parliament aims to improve the position of victims and some
witnesses but it tilts the balance away from the defendant's right to a fair
trial. These provisions, which although taken individually may be sensible,
taken collectively push us further in the direction of eroding this
important right."

But the Government argues that many prosecutions, particularly for drugs
offences, are being dropped, wasting millions of pounds, because witnesses
fail to turn up to testify, fearing reprisals from drugs barons. The changes
would also enable more prosecutions to be brought against child sex abusers,
abusers of mentally disabled people and rapists.

At present, prosecutions of alleged abusers often collapse or fail to get
the go-ahead in the first place because the child victim is too young or a
witness too disadvantaged to cope with the stress of a trial and
cross-examination. The same rules would apply in rape cases where the victim
is too traumatised to face her alleged attacker in court.

The Law Commission emphasises that the changes will help accused people as
well as prosecutors and could help to avoid miscarriages of justice. The
report cites a 1994 case in which an eight-year-old witness had provided a
statement to the police which contradicted the prosecution case.

The child was later unable to recollect the events. Because of the existing
rule, evidence indicating that the defendant had not committed the murder he
was charged with never reached the jury. The Law Society hailed the
proposals. A spokesman said: "We broadly welcome the recommendations. They
breathe some fresh air into a subject where at present there is not much
common sense."

But a senior criminal law QC, who did not want to be named, said last night:
"The hearsay rule is a fundamental safeguard in a fair trial. Any change
could be detrimental to basic justice. There are certainly reservations that
a fair trial could not be achieved by admitting evidence that cannot be
tested during the court process."