Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Garnier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 8 July 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill.


Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I want to make it clear at the outset that the official Opposition do not accept the Government's timetable, although we accept the principle behind the need for the legislation. The Bill has not come up on us by surprise. The decision of the judicial Committee of the other place was made two or three weeks ago, but the trial took place as long ago as 2004, the murder took place in 2002 and the Court of Appeal considered the matter in 2006. Throughout that time, I suspect that lawyers within the Government will have been anticipating—if they were not, they should have been—one result or the other. That is to say, a confirmation—[Interruption.] If the Home Secretary would keep her mouth shut briefly, we could get on. [Hon. Members: ““Oh!””] I mean that quite seriously, Mr. Speaker—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c1290-1 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Admissibility of evidence Criminal proceedings Appeals Crime Common law Evidence Human rights European Convention on Human Rights House of Lords Intimidation Judgements Protection Sentencing Witnesses Trials Sunset clauses
Legislation
Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk