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
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and what he suggests would have to be on an ex parte basis. That is where the independent counsel comes in, as he would perform any cross-examination of the witness that proved to be necessary. That approach would be something of a last resort, to be used only when a preliminary inquiry had thrown up real questions of credibility. There may be no credibility problem in many of the 50 cases that we know about. The DPP said that such problems would arise in some of the 30 Operation Trident cases, but that implies that they would not in many others. The approach that I have outlined might be necessary in cases such as the Davis case, but that eventuality would probably turn out to be the exception to the exception to the exception, as it were. The inherent jurisdiction, together with the Government's proposal for ex parte applications and inter partes representations, starts to achieve the outcome that I have set out. We are told that there are concerns about costs, but a maximum of 50 or so cases a year will not lead to costs that are unmanageable, given the importance of the cases that we are talking about and the overall interests of justice. I think that the costs should be borne by public funds. As for magistrates courts, it is presumably within the Attorney-General's discretion to grant any application made to him. The process is extremely complicated, whereas it would be simpler to allow the magistrates to have a similar jurisdiction. I put that to the DPP earlier today: he agreed that if magistrates did not have that inherent power, the suggestion to give it to them had merit. There seems to be consensus around the House, if not in the Government, about the importance of independent counsel. I hope that Ministers have listened to the debate and that, if they cannot resolve the matter this evening, they might introduce amendments to this Bill in the other place. If that is not possible, I hope that they will bring forward suitable proposals to resolve the problem in the long term in the more substantive Bill that we will see in the next Session.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1346-7
- 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 09:30:33 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494723
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494723
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494723