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
Is not that explanation a further argument for rethinking clause 3(2)? It seems that it is intended to deal with a number of different problems. On one side there is the witness who is afraid of what the police might do, and on the other there is the witness who is afraid of what other defendants might do. It seems entirely wrong for one clause to deal with both those problems. With the latter type of witness in particular, consent will be an issue. They might want the police to investigate, in which case they could say so.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1345
- 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_494718
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494718
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494718