Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 10 July 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill.


Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

My Lords, one hopes that the Bill is so crafted that innate unfairness will not be evident. Indeed, the remarks that I addressed to the right to a fair trial are very much predicated on that point of view. As I said, we intend to introduce the Bill I mentioned in the next Session. Clearly, if unfairness arose in the way that my noble friend suggested, we would have to consider that in terms of individual cases and any amendments that might need to be made to that Bill. In the other place, probing amendments were tabled in order to inform legislation that might need to be drafted in the future. I am sure that that will be apparent when we analyse the speeches made at Second Reading and in Committee. Following an amendment made in the other place, the Bill now contains a sunset clause, in effect putting our commitment on to a statutory footing. The Appellate Committee of this House set us a challenge to devise a statutory scheme for the use of anonymous evidence which is compatible with the right of a defendant to a fair trial. We believe that this Bill fulfils that challenge and I commend it to the House.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c869-70 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Admissibility of evidence Criminal proceedings Common law Evidence Human rights European Convention on Human Rights House of Lords Intimidation Judgements Protection Witnesses Sunset clauses
Legislation
Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk