Skip to main content

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

That is entirely right, although of course confusion does currently arise when an independent or special counsel is appointed in the context of disclosure, for instance. The query that the Solicitor-General raised can arise in that situation. Amendment No. 2, which is based almost word for word on the New Zealand Act, clarifies the point precisely. Under it, the independent counsel would answer to the judge, address the considerations and conditions set out in clauses 4 and 5 and respond to specific queries from the judge. In other words, he would be acting as a minister of justice, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway said. In one sense he would represent the defendant's interests, but he would also represent those of a court that needed to be better informed. Putting that role in statute would both respond to the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) identified, and satisfy the anxieties that the Solicitor-General expressed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c1344 
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