Proceeding contribution from Jack Straw (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 answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point was given earlier in the debate. For sure, the special counsel has a role that is different from that of the judge or the prosecutor, but no information is directly available to special counsel; they, too, would have to go to the police. One of the arguments raised about that is that the police could leak the name of the witness. That is an inherent problem in any such case, but I know of no example where the clear order of a court requiring that the identity of a witness be prohibited has been broken. If it was, it would be contempt of court and the police officer would find himself in prison rather quickly.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1351
- 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 09:30:34 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494733
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494733
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494733