---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I support, to some extent, the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but I will concentrate mainly on the amendments tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. Amendment No. 21 essentially seeks to redesign subsection (3), which deals with condition A. It would delete the words,"““safety of the witness or another person””," and replace them with,"““witness or another person from death or serious injury.””" Our argument is that witness anonymity orders should be made only in cases where there is a genuine and substantial risk of very serious injury, and even death. The expression in the Bill—"““to protect the safety of the witness or another person””—" is too vague to allow the court to hold to that as a condition. No doubt the safety of the witness is encompassed within the risk of death or serious injury, but we suggest that the condition needs to be much higher. On amendment No. 5, is not subsection (3)(b) simply another way of saying what is set out in condition C? I take the point of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about undercover police witnesses and so forth, but I would add that the provisions are pretty vaguely drawn. When we get to the point where the criminal law has to relay on expressions such as ““or otherwise””, we have a degree of difficulty. Even in emergency legislation that is briefly considered, we should not put the criminal law in that position. Whichever way one looks at it, while it is necessary to prevent real harm to the public interest, whether the carrying on of activities in the public interest or the safety of someone carrying out such activities is affected, it seems entirely proper that the provisions should be much more specific and much clearer. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the matter is covered by clause 5, ““Relevant considerations””, in subsection (1)(a) and (b)—I am getting ahead of myself The matter is largely covered by condition C. The public interest should engage only in the most serious cases where risk of injury to the witness is concerned. I am not sure that that is clear in the drafting of the Bill. Amendment No. 5 deals with clause 4(6). The provisions in question deal with property, and subsection (6) states:"““In determining whether the measures to be specified in the order are necessary for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), the court must have regard (in particular) to any reasonable fear on the part of the witness""…(b) that there would be serious damage to property””." I am getting ahead of myself again, because I am actually dealing with amendment No. 31 and the phrase ““or serious financial loss””. That is probably an uncontroversial aspect. It may be that the court would hold that property includes financial assets, money and so on, but it may not. In order to be clear about that, the expression ““or serious financial loss”” should be added. To return to amendment No. 5, I seek to leave out from—