Proceeding contribution from Lord Mayhew of Twysden (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
The arguments that have just been adduced seem overwhelming. I do not wish to delay for more than a minute the reply from the noble Lord or from the noble and learned Baroness, when we will see whether they are overwhelmed. I hope that one question will be answered when they reply. We have been reminded that the New Zealand model does not provide for similar provisions to apply to the magistrates’ court. What adverse consequence, if any, is seen by the Government to have derived from that feature of the New Zealand model that has led them to decide not to follow it in the Bill?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1154
- 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_492632
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492632
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492632