Brits go digital to help scared witnesses

VADODARA: Can video-conferencing stop witnesses from turning hostile? At least the British think so. On the same day that the Supreme Court issued showcause notices to Zahira Sheikh and the Gujarat government asking if their act should be viewed as contempt, the Lord Chancellor of UK said they were looking at an elaborate witness protection programme.
The British legal system is not facing a complex case like the Best Bakery and yet it is looking at witness protection seriously.As part of a five-year plan, Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, has stated that within four years he wants all crown courts and 90 per cent of magistrates'' courts to have facilities of video-conferencing to keep witnesses separate from defendants in a manner that they can''t be threatened.
The Gujarat government may have faced many allegations of witnesses being threatened but witness protection is not on its agenda yet. Home minister Amit Shah has a traditional approach to the issue.
"If any witness approaches us and says that he or she is threatened, then we would consider the category in which he or she falls and would give adequate security. We have not yet considered video-conferencing.However, we will follow as per directions of the court in such matters," he says.
Interestingly, the Ahmedabad city civil court is already carrying out a similar programme for undertrials. The undertrials are allowed to be present before the court every 15 days by way of video-conferencing. The same principle can be applied for deposition by witnesses as well, experts say.
The Supreme Court has already set a precedent for such cases. In a landmark judgement, Justice S N Variava and Justice B N Agrawal had allowed US based Dr Ernest Greenberg to give his testimony in a medicolegal case through video-conferencing in April 2003.
Greenberg was allowed to testify after he expressed his willingness to give evidence in the case, where two Indian doctors had ignored Greenberg''s advice resulting in the death of one P C Singhvi''s wife. The ruling came on the appeals filed by the Maharashtra government and P C Singhvi.
The bench had then ruled that "In cases where the attendance of a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience, the Court could consider issuing a commission to record evidence by way of video conferencing."
Gujarat High Court Advocates Association president Yatin Oza says, "Giving evidence is an intimidating experience, especially when you''re a victim. Video-conferencing, especially for witnesses involved in sensitive cases, is necessary. Best Bakery case would be just one example out of the scores of cases where witnesses are threatened directly or indirectly. By implementing such a system, it would put the witness at ease to offer his testimony."
Toeing a similar line, the vice-chairman of the Bar Council of Gujarat Anil Kella says, "Video-conferencing for witnesses has become a necessity in Gujarat, especially in riot cases. In cases were alleged ISI agents or local political leaders are involved, the witness gets intimidated by the presence of accused. In such cases, videoconferencing is essential. The government should try to implement this facility at least where the offence is heinous in nature."