---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

With great respect, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I do not want to go down that interesting diversionary route. Public interest immunity is different. PII judges are armed with different considerations and prosecuting counsel has clear lines of inquiry. The concept of informants is well-known. What I am talking about is a witness in a case who might have completely misled the prosecuting authorities about the nature of his role as a witness. I want to concentrate on that for a moment, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind. PII is imperfect, as we all know, but this provision could be very imperfect. In such cases, what is necessary is an advocate who knows what the facts are, knows the identity of the witness and can advocate what the judge should do in those circumstances. More than hypothetically—almost certainly—they could say, ““It is our submission that you should put into train the following inquiries in relation to this witness before you make a decision. If necessary, you must use the prosecution in order to do so.”” That would mean that somebody could come back and say, ““Yes, on inquiry, they are right. This witness is apparently not the person that he or she appears to be.”” In such circumstances, an advocate is needed. It cannot be done in the abstract. There are two reasons for that. First, advocacy is not a bad idea anyway. Secondly, and more importantly, if the judge says, ““I will not do that. I will not put those inquiries in train””, there is cause for appeal based on what the judge has said. If one does not have a special advocate, one does not know the basis on which the judge has arrived at that decision, and one never will. That is a hypothetical example.