Skip to main content

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