Proceeding contribution from Lord Lester of Herne Hill (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
The noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General has not explained what is wrong with Amendment No. 4C. She has simply said that the Government do not accept it. From what she has said so far, I do not understand why. The amendment does not prescribe a statutory scheme; all it does is give the court an express power to appoint special counsel from the Attorney-General’s panel. What is wrong with that? Is it that it is unnecessary because there is ample power to do it already, and therefore this is, as lawyers say, otiose? Or is it that in some way it conflicts with settled government policy, or that the Government have not decided the policy? We need to know so that I can tell the committee why the Government do not accept the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1125
- 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 09:30:10 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492571
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492571
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492571