---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I support the amendment. First, I must express my apologies for not having been able to be here on Second Reading. I know the rules very well about not making Second Reading speeches in Committee, and I have no intention of doing so. However, I would like to say something—about five sentences in all—seeing that the noble and learned Baroness referred to a letter which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I was much concerned by the initial reactions to the decision of this House in R v Davis. I was concerned that Parliament might be asked to reverse that decision on its facts. When I read the Bill, however, and in particular the late amendment introduced by the Government in the House of Commons, which is now Clause 5(2)(c), I realised that that is not so. If the facts of Davis were to recur again tomorrow, the result would, in my opinion, be exactly the same. I am very glad of that. My real concern now is whether the Bill should be extended to magistrates’ courts. In my view it would be a mistake, at least until we have some experience of how the Bill will work out in the Crown Courts. The Director of Public Prosecutions—this is to some extent an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—could think of not a single case in which an anonymity order had been sought in the magistrates’ courts. The Lord Chancellor could think of two such cases, but they were of a very different order from the 50 so-called civilian cases and the 17 so-called Trident cases, which are the reason—the only reason—why the Bill is before us as emergency legislation. There are two other reasons for caution in respect of magistrates’ courts. First, there is considerable doubt about the practicability of extending the Bill to magistrates’ courts, a doubt which has been expressed in many quarters. Secondly, although there was some discussion of magistrates' courts in the other place, the other place never reached Clause 12. This has been described by the noble and learned Baroness as an interim measure. Surely it is better not to embark on difficult and, to some extent, unexplored territory in an interim measure unless it is absolutely necessary, which in my opinion it is not. We do not want to add to the teething difficulties that the Bill will undoubtedly experience in the Crown Courts let alone the magistrates' courts. I read with great interest what the noble and learned Baroness said in her reply at Second Reading, but, with respect, I have to say that I found that part of her reply the least satisfying. The sensible course now must be to see how the new procedure works out in the Crown Court and then apply it, if thought fit, when the new Bill comes along in the next Session. There cannot be that much of a hurry to apply the Bill to magistrates' courts. If there are urgent and important cases that might otherwise have gone to the magistrates' courts, they can always in the mean time, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has explained, go to the Crown Court—there is no difficulty about that at all. I therefore hope that the Government will agree to the amendment, or at least that the noble and learned Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might find some way of bringing into force this part of the Bill, so far as it relates to magistrates' courts, only at a later stage when the new Bill is introduced. If anybody needs any assistance in drafting an amendment to Clause 13 to enable that to be brought about, I shall be happy to help before Third Reading.