Skip to main content

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

I do not want to be accused of anticipating a future debate, but this issue is precisely that raised by the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), on whether the standard should be that the court may make an order only if it is satisfied about the conditions, or whether it is sure. The independent counsel would work to whichever of those standards is in the statute, and I do not see how that issue is at all relevant to the question of whether we should have an independent counsel system in the first place. The other point that the Government seem to be making is that this issue could be dealt with by issuing guidance on the existing power. The trouble with that is that the existing power appears, first, not to apply to the magistrates court. Secondly, it seems to be exceptional, and, as we have already discussed, it ought to be exercised rather more often than exceptionally. Thirdly, on a practical matter, it is not clear under the existing system exactly who pays and how much. That issue should be dealt with by the statute.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c1337 
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