---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I believe in using language that says exactly what is meant. The danger is that the word ““satisfied”” will result in further litigation down the track when the Court of Appeal is asked to determine by what standard the court must be satisfied—hence the suggestion that we should use ““sure””, which at least makes the point absolutely plain. Amendment No. 5 would delete clause 4(3)(b). It goes a little further than I should have done; I am perfectly willing to accept that in respect of undercover officers and so on there is a case for protecting the identity of the witnesses. However, the language used in paragraph (b) goes far beyond that and erects the concept of the public interest, damage to the state and this and that to such a point that I can see the Crown seeking to shelter a whole lot of nefarious activities behind the rubric of the paragraph.