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
I do not think that that is the best argument. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in a case such as the Attorney-General of New Zealand had in mind, there would be some risk to persons for the damage to property to be serious, and fire-bombing a residence clearly contains that risk. So the question—this also relates to my amendment—is whether damage to property alone, without risk to person, is sufficient. I do not know what that might be, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can come up with an example.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1366
- 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_494772
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494772
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494772