R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36 is a decision of the United Kingdom House of Lords which considered the permissibility of allowing witnesses to give evidence anonymously. In 2002 two men were shot and killed at a party, allegedly by the defendant, Ian Davis. He was extradited from the United States and tried at the Central Criminal Court for two counts of murder in 2004. He was convicted by the jury and appealed. The decision of the House of Lords in June 2008 led to Parliament passing the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 a month later. This legislation was later replaced by sections 86 to 97 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Trial Davis was charged with the murders of Ashley Kenton and Wayne Mowatt who had been present at a party in Hackney, East London, on the morning of January 1, 2002. Davis, although admitting being present at the party, claimed to have left before the shooting, and relied on an alibi defence. However, three prosecution witnesses identified Davis as the gunman. To protect their identity, the judge ordered that they would be allowed to give evidence under pseudonyms any details which might identify them were to be withheld from Davis and his legal advisers and they could not be asked any questions which might lead to their identification they would be allowed to give evidence from behind screens and their voices disguised electronically. Davis' counsel, Malcolm Swift QC, objected to these restrictions but was overruled by the trial judge. Appeals Davis first appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the judge's orders relating to the anonymity of witnesses were contrary to the common law and Article 6(3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore Davis could not have received a fair trial. This contention was rejected and Davis' appeal dismissed. However the court did certify a point of law of general public importance: This permitted a further appeal to the House of Lords. The case was heard by five law lords. On 18 June 2008 they unanimously held that Davis had not had a fair trial, since his counsel had been unable to adequately challenge the prosecution evidence or test the reliability of the anonymous witnesses. Davis's defence had been that his ex-girlfriend had told lies about him to the police, or had persuaded other people to tell such lies on