Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jack Straw (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 26 June 2008. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Witness Anonymity.


Witness Anonymity

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was glad, although it was not wholly unexpected, to hear him join the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and myself in deprecating the attacks on the judiciary that have taken place. I do not think that anyone argues with Lord Carswell; it is not a point exclusive to him, but is common to all the judgments in this case, by the Court of Appeal as well as by the House of Lords, and it is a central part of the way in which we operate, that there has to be a presumption in favour of openness. That is the basis on which the trial courts and the Court of Appeal have always operated and is not particularly in issue. The question is on what basis courts should move against that presumption and how they judge that. We are looking at the issue of independent counsel. There are circumstances in which use is made of special advocates in our system, which amounts to the same thing, but there are problems with that. We should not get ourselves into a huge lather about transitional arrangements. There is a world of difference between legislation that is retrospective to create substantive criminal offences, which has been regarded as totally out of order in all circumstances, and legislation that changes criminal procedure, which can operate only from the day when it comes into force but then makes a difference as to how cases are judged prospectively, including cases that are in the pipeline, whether that pipeline is trial or appeal within the normal time limits, and cases that come into a new pipeline, which are cases in our system referred well out of time by the Criminal Cases Review Commission or that gain direct access to the Court of Appeal. The Bill is effectively designed to say that from the time that it comes into force, which will be very shortly, the courts will not have to quash a conviction, nor, by the same token, will the trial be aborted, simply because the arrangements made might have been regarded as outwith the Law Lords' judgment. That is the point of it. We are working hard on the drafting, but it is so that there is as little disruption as possible to trials currently taking place and in the pipeline, to normal-time appeals and to out-of-time appeals.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c520-1 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Admissibility of evidence Criminal proceedings Appeals Convictions Common law European Convention on Human Rights House of Lords Intimidation Legislation Judgements Protection Witnesses Trials
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk