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
I should say to the Lord Chancellor that I do not intend to press that amendment. One of its main purposes was to probe the Government on what sort of evidence they thought should be used in the hearings. It seems to me from what he has just said that it looks like evidence that is usually inadmissible put in ex parte. Is that not yet another reason why there should be an independent counsel to make sure that both sides are heard?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1349
- 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 09:30:30 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494728
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494728
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494728