Proceeding contribution from Lord Garnier (Conservative) 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
Shone confusion sounds like an Irish female pop singer, does it not? I must confess that my knowledge of Irish pop singers is very limited. The confusion in my mind, which other Members may not share, concerns what the Government intend, at least by the words that they have used. Their intention may well be that the court should examine condition C objectively, but the impression I gain from subsection (6) is that although the witness may present what to him is a reasonable fear that he will suffer death or injury, that fear will turn out to be unreasonable when it is objectively considered. It may well be that I have confused myself, and it may well be that I am leading myself up a blind alley, but it is significant that I may have done so. I confess that I am no longer a full-time practitioner at the Bar, still less at the criminal Bar, but it seems to me that the language used by the Government in subsection (6) is confusing enough to warrant clarification, which may be provided either by the Minister who responds to the debate or by the use of alternative wording in the Bill. In any event, I think it essential that we reinforce the need for objectivity. If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) believe either that the subsection does not need to be adjusted or that it can be adjusted by means of amendment No. 7, we shall all go away happy, but the main point is that we need to be assured that it is the objective test with which we are concerned. I hope that that deals with amendment No. 22. I want the court to have a positive duty to assess the reasonableness of any fear alleged on the part of the witness or another person, and I submit that that is not currently clear in the Bill. Amendment No. 23 proposes the addition of the word ““serious”” before the word ““injury””. That is self-explanatory, and it ties in with my other concerns in relation to clause 4(3). I have already dealt with—albeit accidentally—my amendment No. 31, which addresses the issue of serious financial loss. The amendments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham are more than worthy of the Government's consideration, and I hope that the Minister will deal with them and with my amendments, and perhaps take up the issues that might, or might not, be raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1364-5
- 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_494770
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494770
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494770