In his comment, Ian Kelcey, chairman of the CLSA, argues that witness anonymity could seriously damage a defendant’s right to a fair trial, and acknowledges that ‘there may be some cases where it is desirable to achieve a conviction [sic], but at what cost?’ (see [2008] Gazette, 17 July, 8). So far, so good, though I question the choice of words.

After the robust decision of the House of Lords in the case of R v Davis, Mr Kelcey implies that the government should leave well alone. He opines: ‘Our justice system is about achieving a fair balance between justice for the prosecution and justice for the accused.’ He then ignores the conundrum R v Davis creates in these exceptional cases: ‘extremely violent people’ become more difficult to prosecute or even immune.

What of the right of a citizen and witness of truth, possibly terrified, to give evidence without fear? What of the victim and his or her family? I see no ‘balance’.

Mr Kelcey’s comments seem non-case specific and, as such, I believe the word ‘justice’ should be used with care and broadly equate to what might commonly be considered to be the ‘right result’. Any other interpretations of the word could lead to implied moral ambiguities that could damage our profession.

If R v Davis potentially allows men of violence to get away with it, simply by virtue of their willingness to use violence, that would lead to injustice. Alternatively, should I rejoice, simply because I see a defendant, any defendant, being acquitted? I think not.

What we need are constructive suggestions as to how to proceed, so that the profession can help solve this very real problem.

I think the government had to act and, for once, has got it about right.