---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I am slightly puzzled by this amendment. I fully accept that if the court has a reason to believe the things set out in Amendment No. 6A, that would certainly be a reason why the order should not be made. But surely the main problem about anonymity is that one will not know that there is any motive to be dishonest or what the relationship is between the witness and the defendant or his associates. That is the problem that anonymity creates. I am worried whether, if this condition is in the Bill and the court says that there is no reason to believe this, it will be taken by implication as a finding that, in fact, there is no reason to believe that the witness is dishonest or has motive to be dishonest, when, if only the accused knew who it was, he would be able to say, ““Well, of course he has a reason for doing me in—he is sleeping with my wife! He wants me away in prison so he can get on and do that with impunity””. That is just an example. Until he knows who the witness is, he cannot say things like that. What worries me is whether that makes it any more likely that someone will say that the court considered that and saw no reason to believe these things, and that therefore they do not exist.