Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Mallalieu (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill.


Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: 2: Clause 3, page 2, line 25, at end insert— ““( ) Where an application is made under this section, the court must be informed of the identity of the witness.”” The noble Baroness said: Since I tabled this amendment, the government amendment to plug the gap has been tabled. Despite what was said shortly before we began this Committee stage, I am bound to say that it was not just the Government who failed to notice that there was a rather large gap. All those who spoke at Second Reading and who practise at the criminal Bar should have noticed that there was no provision in the Bill for circumstances in which the defence wished to call a witness with anonymity where there were co-defendants as well. I am grateful that that is being dealt with in the way that it is. When I tabled this amendment, I was concerned that nowhere in the Bill—whether in relation to the conditions for making the order, the applications or the relevant considerations—was it expressly spelt out that the court must be informed of the identity of the witness. That ought to appear in the Bill as a safeguard for the defendant. At the very least, the defendant must have the safeguard of knowing that someone other than just the prosecuting authorities knows the true identity of the witness against him. Therefore, I am grateful that the Government tabled their amendment, which deals precisely with that point in its first new subsection. As I said, I am also grateful for the tabling of the longer, more detailed amendments that follow it, which seem to me to make sense. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which is grouped with Amendment No 2, appears to indicate that defence making an application in relation to an anonymous witness should notify the court but not the prosecutor. There seem to me to be difficulties with that, as the court will not be in possession of the large amount of undisclosed material that will be available to the Crown. It may benefit the defence if the prosecutor is aware of the identity of the witness whom the defence proposes to call, who may hold material of importance to the trial. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c1112 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Common law Intimidation Protection Property Magistrates' courts New Zealand Witnesses Trials
Legislation
Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk