---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by each and every noble and learned Lord who has contributed to the debate so far. It seems to me that everyone’s intentions are noble and honourable. The question, however, is whether the amendment can achieve what it seeks to achieve. I may be looking at the matter much too rigidly, but one could mount this argument: either the common law is preserved or it is overruled by statute and replaced by statute. You cannot, effectively—and certainly not without a great deal of danger—have statute told how to interpret in accordance with the rules of common law. The two realms are mutually exclusive. I hope and trust that the Government say that the principle has been maintained and that it is spelt out clearly in Clause 5(2), which refers to, "““the general right of a defendant in criminal proceedings to know the identity of a witness in the proceedings””." I hope that they can say, ““That is exactly what Blackstone in his commentaries in 1794, Bentham in 1827 and Sir Matthew Hale in 1820 were talking about””. The judgment in Davis said of Bentham: "““The latter regarded the cross-examination of adverse witnesses as ‘the indefeasible right of each party, in all sorts of causes’””." If Clause 5(2) is intended to do that and no less, there does not seem to be a problem. If there is a problem, I accept that it has to be tackled in some way, but, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I doubt whether it should be by way of this mechanism.