Proceeding contribution from Jack Straw (Labour) 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
It is certainly the case that courts have an inherent jurisdiction to appoint special counsel or advocates, and they have used that in the past. Indeed, one was used in the case of Davis. That inherent jurisdiction will continue. Given the time constraints on Second Reading, I will explain when we come to the amendments on that issue why the Government intend to resist its inclusion in the Bill at this stage.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1310
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-04 09:30:56 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494628
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494628
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494628