European Court of Human Rights Accepts Use of Anonymous Witnesses to Convict…

THE killers of Northampton teenager Letisha Shakespeare have failed in a new bid for freedom after the European Court of Human Rights rejected their appeal against the use of an anonymous witness.

The case of Marcus Ellis and Rodrigo Simms was re-examined after their lawyers submitted their original trial had been unfair. It could have paved the way for a fresh appeal against their 2005 murder convictions, which saw them jailed for life.

Their lawyers claimed they did not receive a fair trial at Leicester Crown Court because a key witness, a convicted robber using the pseudonym Mark Brown, was allowed to give crucial and anonymous evidence against them.

The trial judge’s decision to allow the witness to give evidence from behind a curtain and with his voice electronically distorted “defied 1,000 years of common law in this country” and allowed for “a grave miscarriage of justice”, lawyers argued.

Gang members Nathan Martin, 26, Marcus Ellis, 24, Michael Gregory, 23, and 20-year-old Rodrigo Simms, were all jailed for life after being convicted of murder and attempted murder.

It cost thousands of pounds to protect Mr Brown, after he agreed to testify against the four men. He was the only prosecution witness to name three of the four defendants as being the killers of Charlene, 18, and 17-year-old Letisha.

More than 400 people attended Letisha’s funeral at Park Avenue Methodist Church in Abington Avenue, Northampton in 2005.

The pair were shot dead outside a New Year’s party in Aston, Birmingham, on January 2, 2003, in a revenge attack by the Burger Bar Boys. While they were standing outside, the gang drove by and fired a sub-machine gun, hitting both girls several times.

Charlene’s twin sister, Sophie, and cousin Cheryl Shaw were also shot, but survived.

Two of their killers appealed to the European Court stating the decision to grant Mark Brown anonymity and the admission of his oral evidence had breached their right to a fair trial, including the right to examine a witness.

But seven judges dismissed the application, adding: “The court was satisfied the jury had been able to conduct a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of Mark Brown’s evidence. It therefore dismissed the applicants’ complaints and declared the case inadmissible.”