---

Criminal Justice: Witness Anonymity

My Lords, as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I was present at a briefing this morning where the police were outlining some of the implications for their work. Many people felt very real concern that some dangerous criminals would be released as a result of this ruling unless these matters are rectified, possibly involving some retrospective legislation. They also expressed how difficult it would be for the police to bring forward for prosecution those who, in the public interest, should be brought to trial. I have two points for my noble friend. First, when the threshold is set for judges for reasons why a witness should be afforded anonymity is set, I hope it will not be set at the level where the witness has actually to have been threatened. The witness may not be someone who the defendant expected to testify against them, so if it is a requirement that they actually be threatened, that threshold may be too high. Secondly, it would be helpful to the House if more details were given of the implications for witnesses who opt for the witness protection programme, which requires them and their families not only to change their name but to sever all relationships for all time with all the people they have ever known; to be relocated to another part of the country; to be found accommodation at public expense, and not all local authorities are helpful in providing accommodation under those circumstances; and to be found employment. It is a major step for any individual and their families to take, and one which is extremely expensive for the state.