Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) 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
The opposite point of view is that it is precisely cases of that seriousness that should go to the Crown court in the first place. The anonymity order would still apply, but in the right court. There is no bar against that happening in the adult court; only in the youth court is there some difficulty about how to proceed. However, as I said, I do not think that that difficulty should determine what happens in the adult court. There is one further problem, to which I shall return in Committee. It relates to clause 3(2), and I shall just mention it now. Clause 3(2) shows a fundamental inequality between defence and prosecution. It says that if the defence manages to get an anonymity order—it is good that the Bill allows that—it must nevertheless reveal the identity of the witness to the prosecution. However, the same does not apply the other way around. That is still a problem and I have not heard any argument from the Government so far that would justify that stance. I do not want to end on a negative note. There has been immense progress on the Bill, which has improved during its short existence, including on the sole and decisive evidence point, on which the Government have tabled a reasonable amendment. The transitional provisions have become tighter and clearer, especially in dealing with the part-heard cases. I am especially pleased that the Government have accepted the principle of the sunset clause; they have accepted the idea that the fact that this is temporary legislation should be in the Bill and that we shall return to it in next Session's law reform, victims and witnesses Bill. This Bill is necessary, but I am not entirely happy with it as it stands. It has a lot of problems and we have a very short time to put them right—if not here, then in another place. The Bill is, however, moving in the right direction. Witness anonymity is occasionally justified, but it should never become the norm. Practice was moving in that direction before the case of Davis at the House of Lords. The House of Lords has brought us back from the brink. The Bill is starting to strike a better balance.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1323-4
- 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 09:30:50 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494667
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494667
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494667