Recent developments in Britain, which we expect will have already come to the attention of the administration, should add urgency to long-standing proposals for amendments to the law so that witnesses, in some circumstances, can give evidence electronically from remote locations, or to be assured of some form of anonymity.

When these ideas were first floated it was because of a growing concern for the intimidation of witnesses, which undermined the process of justice and rewarded criminals. Indeed, it is not unknown, or even uncommon, in Jamaica for witnesses to crimes to be shot dead before they testify, or be made to 'forget' what they saw, or knew, of an incident.

The upshot: obviously guilty people go free.

This concern has gained additional currency recently with the sharp spiral in what was already a crisis of violent crime and environment of fear.

Exercising the administration

So, the matter of how we protect witnesses prior to, and after, their appearances in court is exercising the Golding administration. As it should, given the UK development, which has sent Gordon Brown's Labour government scurrying to draft new legislation to prevent the collapse of dozens of murder convictions.

Last week, the law lords, Britain's court of last resort, upheld an argument that it was a principle of English law that a person accused of a crime should know his accuser and be able, face to face, to challenge his/her evidence. That ruling led to Justice David Paget at the Old Bailey stopping a trial of two men accused of murder. Anonymously delivered evidence had come into play.

The fear now is that many convictions, which involved anonymous witnesses, could be appealed, and that other cases which would depend on maintaining the anonymity of frightened witnesses could collapse.

In Jamaica, defence lawyers have in the past objected to the idea of people giving evidence anonymously, such as hiding behind screens or distorting their voices. They have been, at best, lukewarm to video evidence. Those who hold this position will be emboldened by the law lords' ruling, which would be powerful in appeals at the Privy Council.

Objection

Jamaica, however, cannot be deterred from pressing ahead with the proposed reforms, however much some, including Mrs Simpson Miller, the Opposition leader, might object to the plan, as she perhaps will - and as she is doing in the case of the idea to extend the time the police can hold a suspect before a bail hearing.

All this is not to suggest that we endorse the total abrogation of fundamental principles of justice and individual rights and freedoms. But there is no greater freedom than the right to life.

The intent, rather, is to provide the society with breathing space - a return to a semblance of functionality so that law enforcement can operate with relative normality. The danger, otherwise, is the society being overcome by criminality and deeper entrenchment of social dysfunctionality.

Adjusting the systems by which people are allowed to give evidence in criminal cases is part of this process. It is important, though, that once we make the changes they have a sound basis in the law. We would suggest that the Government watch closely developments in the UK.