---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

moved Amendment No. 14: 14: Clause 12, page 6, line 24, leave out ““a magistrates’ court,”” The noble Lord said: The Bill extends to magistrates’ courts. In New Zealand, if the question of anonymity arises in a district court, the case is automatically transferred to the high court for trial. The Government have chosen not to follow the New Zealand pattern in this respect. It is a test of the exceptionality of the provisions that they are putting forward. How many times has anonymity been granted to a witness in the magistrates’ courts so far as the Minister’s records can tell us? Secondly, how many magistrates’ courts are currently equipped to enable special measures to be carried out to ensure the continuing anonymity of a witness? In principle, this provision is unacceptable for a number of reasons. In the first place, the application has to be made to the magistrates who actually hear the case. At the beginning of the trial, the magistrate is confronted with an application for anonymity which must be on the basis of threats, fear or misconduct on the part of the defendant or his associates. That inevitably means that the magistrates will be heavily prejudiced against the defendant before the matter is heard at all. Secondly, there is no provision in the magistrates’ court—no inherent jurisdiction—to appoint the sort of special counsel that the Government concede the High Court and the Crown Court can grant. Their answer to our request for independent counsel to be included in the Bill is, ““You already have it””. There is an inherent power in the Crown Court or in the High Court for special counsel to be appointed. That does not of course apply to the magistrates’ court. So that safeguard, which the Government say is sufficient for this emergency legislation, is not available either. One then has to consider the gravity of the offences that are to be subject to such an order. The noble and learned Baroness, who is not in her place just at the moment, mentioned the possibility of breaches of control orders being before the magistrate. Surely dealing with anonymous witnesses is sufficiently important for the case to be transferred to the Crown Court for consideration of that point. There should be machinery in place to do that. Another argument advanced by the Government is that youth courts try more serious offences than the average run of the magistrates’ court. That may be so, but all the problems that I have outlined in relation to adult magistrates’ courts apply to youth courts. There should be built-in machinery to enable a Crown Court judge to consider a matter as serious as that if it is to be used exceptionally and not to become an everyday order made by the court. It might be said that witness intimidation cases are heard in the magistrates’ court. There are few cases of any nature heard in the magistrates’ court which are as serious as witness intimidation. Surely if the question of anonymity arises in that respect, the matter should be put up to the Crown Court straight away. Even if there is no power to do so, that is bound to be a more serious offence than the sort of offences that commonly appear before the magistrates for their adjudication. From the point of view of practicality, principle and the lack of the proper machinery, the inclusion of magistrates’ courts in the Bill is a step too far. It is a matter which deserves much more consideration in connection with the future Bill than it has received so far. I beg to move.