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

It is scarcely surprising that we have strayed from the grouping. It is necessary to grasp at straws, such as the special counsel, in order to begin to make this legislation look fair to the defence. I do not want to sound churlish because my Amendment No. 2 effectively is covered by government Amendment No. 2A, although I would have preferred the words, "““unless the court directs otherwise””," to have been omitted. It must be the very first principle of this legislation. I do not want to go back to our debate on Second Reading; the noble and learned Baroness knows well my views on the Bill as a whole, which are that we should not be doing it in the first place. But as we are, the first principle should be that the judge is in possession of all the facts. For my part, I cannot imagine a situation in which a judge worth his salt would say, ““I don’t want to know””, although I suppose it is possible that such a thing might happen at a theoretical point in the future. I therefore welcome the government amendments and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c1120-1 
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