Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) 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, I do not think that the noble Lord grasped the significance of the previous question. As the noble Lord pointed out, it is a condition precedent to the order being granted that the witness would not testify if the order were made. The judge has to be satisfied on that. It is not a consideration; it is a requirement. As the noble Viscount pointed out, that seems a bit odd when you look at Clause 4(3)(b), which refers to undercover operatives. Certainly, we on these Benches have no objection to undercover and security people being protected, but obviously they will give evidence if they have to.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c870
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-04 09:30:23 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491589
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491589
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491589