Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Campbell-Savours (Labour). It was answered on Monday, 20 November 2006.
Parliamentary Privilege: Media Reporting
- Question
- My Lords, why should the trial judge in the original case where there is a conviction for rape have the right to remove anonymity whereas the judge in the Court of Appeal, where the case may be referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, does not have that right? That happened in the Warren Blackwell case and indeed the judge protested during proceedings that she did not have the right to name Shannon Taylor. Why should there not be consistency in the two different legal proceedings?
- Answer
-
My Lords, my noble friend draws attention to the terms of the statute passed by Parliament: the trial court and the Court of Appeal both have the ability to remove anonymity if they regard it as necessary to induce the bringing forward of evidence; and the trial judge, though not the Court of Appeal, has the ability to remove the reporting restriction if it is in the public interest to do so—but not just because there is an acquittal. Why Parliament did not apply the same rules to the Court of Appeal, I cannot say.
Secondary information
- Type
- Oral question
- Reference
- 687 c110
- Session
- 2006-07
- Oral question type
- Supplementary
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Media Parliamentary privilege Parliamentary reporting
- Link
- View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2014-09-01 22:16:25 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1186028/-question
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1186028/-question
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_1186028/-question