What on earth were the law lords thinking re: witness anonymity in criminal trials?

[Cranberry]

This can't be a good thing surely?
Even on a practical level it has immediatley halted a large number of trials which will be costing a fortune!

Also this possibly opens the gates for a huge number of appeals against conviction.

What do you think?
for anyone who hasn't heard they have ended the right to witness anonymity in criminal trials which up until now has protected those brave enough to come forward.

 

[The First Dragon]

In the US the accused has always had the right to see his witnesses in court, to know who they are and to hear their testimony. An exception is made when a child is testifying against an abuser, though, since the presence of the abuser might inhibit the child's testimony.
The theory is that justice is better served if everything is done openly.
I understand that some people are afraid to come forward, they are cowardly or don't trust the criminal justice system. Still, it does seem unfair to bring a witness in anonymously unless it is absolutely necessary and for a very good reason.
But if you are not used to doing things this way, I can understand that it could take a little time to get used to.
I assume that the law is not retroactive, and that convictions made under the old law will still be binding.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US there is a crime called "tampering with a witness," that is, trying to persuade a witness to change his/her testimony, or not to testify. It is a felony and judges take it very very seriously. No doubt this helps prevent the intimidation of witnesses.