Proceeding contribution from Viscount Hailsham (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
Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem with the Bill, and it is a problem that affects us all, is that the Davis judgment will be examined to determine witness credibility? The judgment makes it plain that the Davis case was sent back to the Court of Appeal because the common law power that had previously been thought to exist did not in fact exist. Another reason the case was sent to the Court of Appeal was that the exercise of the protective measures—and they are precisely the same as those contemplated in the Bill—made the trial unfair. That problem will arise very often when the credibility of witnesses is at stake. It may stand in the way of the use of the protected measures, because Davis shows that they render a case unsafe.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1313
- 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_494641
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494641
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494641