The witness had officially received a new identity (birth certificate in new name, Medicare card, passport, tax file number, driver licence etc) as part of the witness protection regime founded on the Witness Protection Act 1991 (Vic). The scope of that protection is described in a memorandum of understanding (or protection agreement) between the witness and the police force. There appears to be some customisation of memos, reflecting factors such as the danger to the witness seeking/being offered protection, what the witness offers in return for protection and the extent to which both sides are savvy in negotiating a deal. Governments have gone to court to prevent disclosure of memos; one rationale - discussed in my dissertation - is that disclosure of terms encourages 'protection shopping'.
Protection is typically dependent on the witness complying with certain conditions. Fundamental dishonesty in gaining the protection or refusal to part with promised information once that protected status has been gained invalidates the deal.
Governments can withdraw protection and on occasion have indeed done so. That withdrawal may involve revocation of the new identity with which the state gifted the formerly protected person. (Revocation includes non-recognition of identifiers in some official databases and surrender of passports and other documents.) The individual is formally "restored" or "returned" to that person's former identity.
The Supreme Court in Re a former protected witness commented that -
When a person agrees to give evidence in court in circumstances where there is a concern for her safety or welfare, the legislature has put in place statutory procedures to protect the witness. And, if I may say so, it is right and proper that this be done. Such a witness might have any of a number of motives for giving evidence, but the result is that information is provided to the police and evidence given in a court for the prosecution of a wrongdoer. For this, the community of Victoria should be grateful and it should acknowledge that such a witness may be running a serious risk in so doing. Witnesses who are prepared to run that risk are brave indeed. When it is thought desirable for them to cast aside their own identity and to assume a new identity for fear for their safety and that of their family, they should not be lightly required to return to their old identity. It may be that those whom they fear will thereby be able to find them and to do them harm. It may be that, with the passage of years, their new identity has become comfortable for them. They have acquired new friends, associates, business interests and all manner of contact with government departments and instrumentalities under their new name. Doubtless there are, in a case such as the present, arrangements in place whereby the witness's tax file number, passport, driver licence, bank accounts and Medicare records can be transferred from the new identity to the old identity. But is this what the witness wishes? Will the removal of the new identity expose the witness to risk? Is it reasonable to do this? What purpose will it serve?
