Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (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
I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that the test is objective. I do not think the word ““reasonable”” can be interpreted in any other way. However, that is combined with the requirement for the court to ensure that the anonymity measures are necessary. It is a pretty absolute requirement for the court to be sure that what it is doing is necessary in the light of the objective ““reasonable”” underlying fear. That can be contrasted with the completely different language in some of the provisions on the self-defence beliefs, which is extremely subjective.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1363
- 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 09:30:36 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494765
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494765
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494765