Proceeding contribution from Robert Marshall-Andrews (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
Will the Lord Chancellor go one stage further than that? The Bill is an uncovenanted bonus, in that it gives us months in which to see whether or not the system works, although I am not suggesting that that is a good way to make criminal justice legislation. Will the Lord Chancellor consider indicating to the judiciary that in that interim period they should consider, in light of the cases that come before them, whether the existence of independent counsel would be of use to them? We could then be given some indication of the answer, possibly through the Lord Chief Justice, when the Bill comes back before the House.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1352-3
- 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_494738
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494738
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494738