---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for bringing that to our attention, and I put on record my apology to him for not dealing with his erudite and thoughtful comments at Second Reading, particularly on this issue. I do think that we have a perfectly sound way forward, but my understanding of this issue is as follows. The rule committee will be asked to look urgently at this matter, as I indicated earlier. I understand that it is to meet on Friday. In the mean time, there is sufficient power under Rule 3.5, the current criminal procedure rule that deals with the court’s case management powers, to enable the courts to give case management directions now to deal with applications pending the making of further rules. In addition, the courts now have the power to ask the Attorney-General—in this instance, me—to appoint a special counsel to assist where necessary. We will of course take into account the strictures which the Judicial Committee properly made about its sparing use and propriety. To return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, we must of course bear in mind that the fairness of trials is of primary importance. If the court were to conclude that special counsel was necessary, it would have to be carefully and appropriately considered case by case. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the rule committee has the power to make rules governing practice and procedure in the criminal courts, and it appears that if the court felt it appropriate, that power would extend to an express power to ask the Attorney-General to appoint special counsel. But that would be a matter for the committee and would depend on the precise functions of those counsel. We have an interesting issue with which to grapple at the moment, which was amply explored earlier in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who asked whether it could be one or two counsel, and by others who asked about the framework within which this would be looked at. We would have to consider what type of cases might need special counsel. As I said earlier, I do not think it would be likely that many would consider the test purchase case to need special counsel. We may need to talk together about the ambit of any such rule, not that I am at this stage giving any indication about what our final position may be. It is absolutely clear that this issue needs discussion, thought and debate.