Well, they have chosen a good question for the interview - the anonymity of witnesses in the Crown Court.
I know enough about it to argue it either way, but think if I don't prep at all, I will probably be setting myself up to fail. My only real decision is which side to take. I am instinctively against allowing complete anonymity - but only for fairly fluffy reasons. I am grateful to a friend for giving me a good example of where it has lead to bad consequences - in a liberal democracy, too - but still feel that the hard-core 'no, it's all fine' is easier to argue.
That said, most barristers seem to be fairly lefty-liberal so maybe fluff is the way to go...!
Oh, decisions, decisions.
Your call, dear blog readers, fluffy liberal or pragmatic right-winger?
Think I might run it as a motion (though word it sligtly differently) though as I quite like it.
*Gray Matters*
1 hour ago
2 comments:
Yeah it's a fairly good motion as hardcore legal motions go (I like legal motions but prefer them when they're not *too* intricate).
I say pick whichever side is the more contrary.
I think it is a good motion because it actually requries very little knowledge of law at all.
It is enough to explain the difference between rape victims and gang memebrs when it comes to anonymity and then tell people to go ahead with it...
I'm going for fluff, I think
Post a Comment