---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

As a result of that, I was able to fulfil another engagement and leave it to him to put the case, as I know he did. On this group of amendments, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made the preamble that I wished to make about the comparison with New Zealand and serious damage to property. There is a published opinion on the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which we did not get on this issue from the otherwise pretty comprehensive opinion of Lord Mance in the Davis case. However, the key question, which is probably best dealt with by my amendment No. 17—it would delete subsection (6)(b), rather than only addressing clause 4(3)(a)—is whether the phrase ““serious damage to property”” is appropriate. Serious damage to property might not necessarily lead to serious financial loss. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about serious financial loss being recompensed. I would have thought that insurance applies in most cases of damage to property, such as torching his car or, indeed, a warehouse, which is clearly not a residence and therefore would not be caught by the provision on risk of injury or death to person. I urge the Minister and the House of Lords to consider modifying the property provision. It could say, ““Where there would be serious damage to property, leading to serious financial loss””, which implies, I think, financial loss not otherwise compensated for through insurance. If the phrase is left as ““serious financial loss””, it could apply to uncompensated time spent in court by witnesses who are no longer able to work because they have been summoned to give evidence.