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
I apologise for testing the noble and learned Baroness’s legendary patience once more. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said about the existence of an inherent rule—which I accept is used only rarely—for the court to appoint an independent or special counsel; and given his concern about different judges taking different decisions about this in similar circumstances; or even the same decisions where the judges may give very different instructions about the procedures which the court should follow, does the noble and learned Baroness believe that it is within the power of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, which was established under Section 70 of the Courts Act 2003, to establish a system of independent counsel, of its own volition, with a set of common rules on the procedure to be followed?
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 09:30:06 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492554
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492554
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492554