---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble and learned Baroness for their responses. I agree with him that if a judge is not in a position to make that assessment, and there may be circumstances in which he is not, that poses a difficulty to my amendment. However, if we assume that the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and myself become part of the procedures of the future Act, then it is highly unlikely that the judge will ever find himself in that position. I must say that I am surprised at the noble and learned Baroness’s response. The judge is obliged to consider considerations (a) to (e) but the weight he puts on them is entirely a matter for him. The judge may have reason to believe that the witness is a liar, but he may conclude that in the context of a fair trial this is of little consequence. I would be extremely surprised if that were the case. However, there is no doubt that that will be the case from time to time if the Bill becomes law in its present form. If a judge reaches a conclusion that a witness is capable of lying or likely to lie, it should be inconceivable that a witness be granted anonymity. That is the reason I tabled my amendment.