Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) 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

I entirely accept that that was a very important amendment in another House; and, in the context of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, a very wise one for the Government to have made. Nevertheless, that does not entirely answer the point that lay behind my amendment, because although ““sole”” is perfectly easy to interpret, when it comes to determining in marginal cases whether evidence given anonymously is decisive, it may from time to time be necessary to take other evidence into account and to assess its weight as corroborative. It would be too ambitious of me to hope that the Government would add this to the Bill, given their response to all the other amendments that we have tabled. Nevertheless, I hope that they will think very hard about it between now and when we consider all these matters again in our consideration of the Law Reform, Victims and Witnesses Bill. On Amendment No. 7E, I suggest to the Minister that one way of dealing with the point that was made particularly well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, would be to treat Clause 4(3)(a) and (b) more distinctly than they are treated in the Bill. Plainly, the drug cases to which the Minister referred are covered by the public interest part of the Bill. I quite accept that ““exceptional”” would be inappropriate in Clause 4(3)(b); it should apply only to Clause 4(3)(a). In the interim, I do not know to what extent the Government are permitted, or regard it as appropriate, to talk to the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee; but if they have an opportunity to do so, they might suggest to the committee that, in casting any rules that it cares to draft, it might reflect on how the notion of exceptional can be included in rules of court, or indeed in some other way such as in guidance to judges. If not, I am quite sure that, if one looks back at the history of particular judges’ decisions on anonymity, one will seek clear trends in particular courts. For that reason, it should be emphasised that these decisions should be taken only exceptionally.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c1141 
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