Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) 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
Before the noble and learned Baroness replies, may I add that the solution put forward at the moment about special counsel is that the court has the power to do that now; the noble and learned Baroness referred to the particular case. A judge in one case may appoint a special counsel to do one thing and in another may appoint special counsel under this common law provision to do something else. There is no guidance or certainty as to the role of the special counsel, if appointed under the common law power. Surely, as my noble friend says, certainty is the important thing. The judge who is trying the case should know what are the circumstances in which it is appropriate and what are the bounds of the duties that he is to lay on counsel. I know that we shall come to this later, but it is so much a part of everything, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1118
- 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 09:30:07 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492553
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492553
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492553