Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lloyd of Berwick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 26 June 2008. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Criminal Justice: Witness Anonymity.


Criminal Justice: Witness Anonymity

My Lords, I am bound to say that I find some difficulty in recognising the recent decision of this House which was mentioned in the Statement that has just been repeated—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating it. I am particularly surprised by the sentence to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred, which mentions a, "““technical defect in the law which has been until now unidentified and unsuspected””." Does the Minister accept that the principle clearly stated by the House of Lords was that any conviction that is based solely or decisively on the evidence of anonymous witnesses cannot be fair? Does he agree that that principle prevailed throughout the 30 years of Irish terrorism despite the obvious threats in Ireland of intimidation? Does he agree that the departure from the basic principle that has been so clearly stated, which has now become so widespread, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned, is of very recent origin, probably not more than 10 or 15 years at most?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c1605 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords 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