Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) 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
As the noble Baroness referred to my amendment in this group, I feel compelled to say something about it. She was quite right to describe my amendment as one that requires information from the defendant to be given to the court alone and not to the prosecutor. She went on to say that that would be a rather overinhibiting requirement, because the court would not be in a position to make an appropriate assessment without information that would come from the prosecutor. I agree with that; but, on the other hand, there would be great dangers in the defendant supplying the appropriate information to the prosecutor, because the prosecutor would almost inevitably pass it on to the police. In those circumstances, it would be almost impossible to keep the defendant’s witness in a state of anonymity. This problem may be in part to do with the groupings. I passed my eye over them this morning and did not make any adverse observations, and it could well be my fault that my amendment has been misconstrued. It ought to be looked at in the context of my Amendment No. 4B, or Amendment No. 4C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, or Amendment No. 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We shall come to those amendments in another group; but they have a bearing on my Amendment No. 4 because, if the evidence goes directly to the judge, he will, as the noble Baroness rightly observed, in most circumstances. not have the resources at his disposal to establish the antecedents and other background matters in respect of the defence’s proposal that one of its witnesses be given anonymity. This problem is solved in Amendments Nos. 4B, 4C or 9. If the judge can appoint an independent counsel to whom he can authorise the appropriate analysis of the defence information, including requiring all information relating to the proceedings that the defence is in a position to yield, in my submission the problem would be solved. There is a particularly apposite subsection in the new clause proposed in the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elystan-Morgan, which, I confess, adds much to my amendment. It states: "““The independent counsel shall have power to require police officers unconnected with the relevant trial to investigate””." That seems an extremely perspicacious observation and I am delighted to see it in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—which is not just by way of saying that I am not being party political.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1112-3
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-04 09:30:08 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492540
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492540
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492540