Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (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
I commend the noble Lord on his elegantly short exposition in support of his amendment. Perhaps I may say straightaway that we agree absolutely that when considering an application for witness anonymity, the court must have before it all the relevant information and that those making the application must do so diligently after making all the necessary inquiries. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on this and we agree with the comments made in support of it by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. But I should point out that much of this territory is already covered by a code of practice made under Section 23 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 which requires police officers to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry and sets out in detail the manner in which police officers must retain, record and reveal to the prosecutor any relevant material obtained in a criminal investigation. We recognise the need for guidance for practitioners and the enforcement authorities, but we are not currently convinced that a statutory code of practice is the right vehicle for it. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, both the Director of Public Prosecutions and I will issue guidance to prosecutors that will make it clear that in this area more than any other it is critical that prosecutors act independently of the police and the witness. In addition, I understand that the National Policing Improvement Agency and the Association of Chief Police Officers are working on guidance for the police that will address the use of anonymity at the pre-charge stage of an investigation. The amendment does not specifically address the question of defence applications. It is assumed that the code of practice would be intended primarily for prosecutors. It is inevitably the prosecutor who must conduct inquiries into witnesses and who therefore must always know the real identity of a defence witness, a matter that was raised in our earlier discussions. In the light of my assurance that appropriate guidance will be issued to the police and prosecutors, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment. Perhaps I may also say at this point that I have been very taken with the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, and I should like to assure her and the Committee that we will take all these matters into consideration when we come to look at this issue.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1145
- 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 09:30:15 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492620
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492620
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492620