Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Evan Harris (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

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be supported in his argument that the paragraph should be narrower, rather than deleted, by what happened in the Joint Committee on Human Rights this afternoon. I asked Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, whether he thought that the provision that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to delete in the public interest covered more than, as the organisation Justice has put it, undercover agents—police and other agents—and their ability to go about their work. He did not think that it covered more than that; at least, he did not offer any other factor. In fairness to him, I should say that he did not argue that the provision was too broad. However, I put it to the Committee that it is too broad if it can be narrowed and if, according to the DPP, nothing else needs to be captured.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c1360 
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