Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Garnier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 16 July 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill.


Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I shall begin by dealing with Lords amendment No. 2, in respect of which I simply ask the Minister to confirm that the rules bringing this procedure into effect will be made as quickly as possible. She mentioned that the committee will be sitting fairly soon. It is important, however, that despite the emergency nature of this legislation, the practitioners and courts see the rules as soon as possible. Amendment No. 1 provides us with an object lesson of what happens when one legislates without proper care and with a great deal of speed but without much consideration. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Minister in the other place, spent about four of the five minutes of his speech apologising when he explained why the amendment was introduced at the last moment. He was right to do so. I notice that the Minister did not find it convenient to do it here, but I am sure that in the back of her mind was the need to apologise to this House for that late amendment. We do not want to press the matter to a Division, but we think that a degree of clarification is required at this late stage. First, what effect does the late Government amendment have on the prosecution's duty to give full disclosure in a criminal case? It is not clear from what the Minister said how or whether that duty is affected. Secondly, will she explain precisely what has been abolished in relation to the common law as it was thought to be until the House of Lords judgment on the Davis case? Clause 1(2) states:"““The common law rules relating to the power of a court to make an order for securing that the identity of a witness in criminal proceedings is withheld from the defendant (or, on a defence application, from other defendants) are abolished.””" Yet clause 5(2), which deals with relevant considerations that have to be taken into account before a court is satisfied that the conditions for making an order have been fulfilled, states in paragraph (a) that those considerations include"““the general right of a defendant in criminal proceedings to know the identity of a witness in the proceedings””." Of course, that takes us back to the common law position. The Government need to explain, even at this late hour, what they intend by clause 1(2). Having said all that, I trust that the Minister is looking forward to her happy hols.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
479 c369 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Protection Witnesses
Legislation
Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk