Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) 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 do not follow the logic of that, I regret to say. What is lacking is any evidence on which the Government’s policy is based. There is no evidence of need and none of a request or requirement from the magistrates’ courts for this sort of anonymity to be extended to them. The Minister says that he knows that it has been used twice. That may be simply an aberration; I suggest that it is. But the Government are now crying out for this policy in an emergency Bill as something that is so essential that we have to rush it through in a day in the House of Commons and in two days here, with all the stages being taken now.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1156
- 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 09:30:13 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492640
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492640
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492640