The UK’s Supreme Court is set to scrutinise the rights of individuals enrolled in the quite confidential witness protection programme, a part of a case brought forward by a family who are pleading for fabricated birth documents to match their new credentials. The court, comprised of a panel of three judges, stated that the case presented by the “Doe” family surfaces an important enquiry regarding the equality and identity rights of those safeguarded by the programme, which has been in force since the assassination of journalist Veronica Guerin in 1996.
The point of contention is whether the State, as dictated by the Constitution or the European human rights law, is mandated to grant individuals involved in the witness protection scheme an entirely new identity from the moment of birth through authorised papers.
The Doe family, who enrolled in the police-run witness protection programme due to persistent threats and intimidation ensuing from revealing information about a criminal group to the police, have had their identities altered confidentially. Despite relocating them across Ireland on multiple occasions, the threats from the gang persisted, leading the State to relocate them abroad with their revamped identities.
Of the entire family, only their youngest child holds a birth document bearing their new surname, the child having been born post the identity change. The others hold passports and the parents possess driving licenses under their new identities. Experiencing difficulties in registering their children into schools and obtaining certain benefits, the family has to rely on aid from a host agency overseas. They contend that they will always be dependent on this help, contradictory to what they had understood to be the intention of the programme.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy of the High Court ruled that the absence of new birth documents did not encroach upon the Doe family’s rights as outlined in the Constitution, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Basic Liberties, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. He noted that though the State could modify the Civil Registration Act 2004, authorising corrections only for clerical or factual inaccuracies in the birth document, accommodating the Doe family’s circumstances through a legislative alteration would undermine the status of birth and marriage records as historical archives.
In their Supreme Court submission, they argued that current legal hurdles obstructing them from acquiring new identity documents like birth and marriage certificates infringe upon their fundamental rights. They assert that these documents are crucial for them to fully engage in societal activities.
The opposition to this assertion included the Garda Commissioner, the Minister for Justice, Ireland, and the Attorney General. They argued that this matter only affects a minuscule number of people and that the Doe family’s demanded rights have no legal standing.
Nevertheless, the green light for the hearing of the appeal was given by three judges on the Supreme Court. Despite acknowledging that the amount of individuals affected is currently quite small, they highlighted that this number would increase over time.
The judges stated that the court will deliberate on the identification rights of individuals participating in the witness protection programme and whether there is a need for legislation or another method to facilitate the issuance of birth and marriage certificates under fresh and secure identities.
The date for the appeal hearing is yet to be scheduled.