Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) 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 shall finish the point and then give way. It is probably more likely that defence witnesses would fear victimisation by other criminal associates. In those circumstances, the prosecution must have the opportunity of looking into the antecedents of a defence witness. That is a different kettle of fish entirely from a prosecution witness, who will have different fears. The hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the need to give the information to the court gets us no further, because the judge knows the anonymous witness's identity anyway, as would an appeal court. That is the position now, and will continue to be the position.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1344-5
- 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 09:30:38 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494715
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494715
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494715