The Prosecution described the payments it had made to a person as “recompense for his services as a source” which is not subject to disclosure to the Defence.
However, the Trial Chamber found that the Prosecution payments were not used to buy information from a source, but rather were given to a potential witness for his own benefit.
In particular, the Chamber noted that it was clear from the information provided by the person to the Prosecution that he did not merely provide information pointing the Prosecution to independent evidence. Rather, he went further by providing substantial information (whether true or false) not only corroborating the testimony of other Prosecution witnesses, but also going to material allegations in the trial.
In the Trial Chamber’s view, this shows that the person was a potential witness rather than a source.
The Chamber also asserted that the letter from the former Chief Prosecutor of the SCSL, indicating that he did not intend to lay charges against the person, supports the inference that the Prosecution wanted to ensure his cooperation, including his testimony if required.
Accordingly, the Chamber found that prior to his listing as a Defence witness, the person was for all intents and purposes, a potential Prosecution witness, notwithstanding that he was never listed by the Prosecution as such.
The Chamber further found that the payments made by the Prosecution to this potential witness went beyond that which is reasonably required for the management of a witness and assumed a potential exculpatory character.
The Trial Chamber accordingly held that the records of these payments should be disclosed pursuant to Rule 68.
Taylor, Decision on Public with Confidential Annexes A-D Defence Motion for Disclosure of Exculpatory Information Relating to DCT-032, 20 October 2010See also previous post: "Taylor case: the Prosecution shall disclose record of payments made to a Defence witness"