Proceeding contribution from Viscount Hailsham (Conservative) 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 take a position that is slightly different from that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and that of the Liberal Democrats. It seems to me that where a defendant who has a co-defendant wishes to have a witness anonymity order made in respect of a witness, the Crown ultimately has a duty to the co-defendant to inform them of any criminal antecedents or other considerations that may make the evidence of the to-be-anonymised witness prejudicial to the co-defendant. The Crown can discharge that obligation only if they know the identity of the anonymised witness.
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_494734
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494734
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494734