Richard Miller wrote:
In message , findthetruth
writes

I was following a murder trial in an independent West Indian
Territory whose legal system is tied to the UK Judicial System.

Here goes : 3 men ..A ,B and C were charged with a murder . C eluded
law enforcement officials for a few years during which time A and B,
brothers, were tried for the murder. A was condemned to death while
B was freed.

C was arrested on another offence tried and sentenced to prison
but under an assumed name. While in prison A informed officials
that C was really the man and not the assumed name he carried.
C was then tried for the murder and sentenced to death . On his
appeal a retrial was ordered.

At the retrial of C the prosecution brought A from death row to give
evidence against C in relation to the murder for which they were all
originally charged . Being a layman I feel that something is wrong
here
and wonder if the evidence of A would have been allowed in a UK
Court .

Why would it not be?

Subject to the warnings on self-interest and corroboration of the evidence
of former accomplices, no problems.