"Witness intimidation" is not exactly a phrase which slips easily off the tongue. It's the sort of dry language with which much government business is done. You'd rarely find it in a newspaper headline and somehow it just doesn't do justice to the nightmare it seeks to describe.
That can probably only really be understood by experiencing it. You'd go through a process which is already difficult: the trauma of witnessing a crime, summoning up the courage to do the right thing and report what you saw to the police, and then giving evidence in court. But on top of all that there would be the fear that by standing on the right side of the law, you had risked your own safety and , that of your loved ones, and perhaps even your own life and theirs
When I was 14 the tenants at our end of the council estate in which we lived faced serious nuisance from a family in the next block. I'm sure this family had their point of view, but from our perspective they were "neighbours from hell". In those days the police did nothing. No one had a ‘phone in their house, so calling them meant an expedition to the phone box (often out of order). Even if they were called up, they'd mark it down as "domestic" (and anyway on a council estate) and not bother. None of what happened involved serious violence, but it was far from pleasant. Finally my mother - who was bringing up five of us on her own - summoned up the courage to go to the magistrates court in the next town and take out a private prosecution.
Fast forward a few years and there is another echo of this very specific problem. One of the major issues I encountered in Blackburn was that of residents saying that they would consider complaining about the behaviour of some young tearaway, or a group of thugs damaging property, but they were scared to do so: they feared reprisals. It was one of the reasons why Blackburn's then police chief, Eddie Walsh (and many congratulations to him on his recent MBE) and I came up with new ways of tackling anti-social behaviour - which eventually led to the creation of ASBOs.
ASBOs embedded into the law provisions for "professional witnesses" to be able to collect key evidence and go to court on behalf of residents scared to be identified. Such witnesses can be council officials or private investigators whose identity may well be known but who live away from the area, and in this way the identity of the original complainants can be kept quiet.
Now this provision is for crime and disorder which although maddening, disruptive and altogether unacceptable, is not life threatening. It's a long way from ASBOs, which are after all civil orders, to the sorts of crimes which are back in the news over the use of anonymous evidence in courts. But there is a comparison in terms of the need to sometimes protect the identities of those who witness crimes to ensure that justice is done.
And it is all the more important that in some (thankfully rare) very serious cases, particularly those involving gang and gun crime, witnesses are able to give their evidence in court anonymously. These are the cases where levels of intimidation can go beyond idle threats, and be enough to persuade someone who saw something that they were mistaken.
Last week the Law Lords - the highest court in the land - ruled that witnesses could only give anonymity in very few cases. They did so citing our Common Law, (the law developed over the centuries by the courts in them than that found in statute). It has already meant that a retrial has been ordered in one very serious case.
What the Law Lords also said, however, was that whether witness anonymity should be available to the court under statute was a matter for Parliament to decide, and this is why today I will be bringing forward proposals to try to make this possible.
I am determined to ensure that judges are able to allow witnesses to give their evidence anonymously in those cases where it is vital for the interests of justice that they can. Such people might be living in fear: we have a duty to support them so that justice is done and their evidence is heard.
It is a difficult balance because we must also do everything possible to avoid innocent people being wrongly convicted. But it is just as important that the guilty are convicted.
