---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

I have not tabled any of the amendments in this group, but I want to make a couple of comments on some of them. I commend the lead amendment, namely amendment No. 3. The word ““satisfied”” is simply half a test—one can be satisfied on the balance of probability, on the preponderance of evidence or on some other basis. The question for the Government is whether they intend to leave the second half of the phrase in the hands of the courts, which is one possible approach, or whether they intend something else. That phrase needs to be cleaned up. Secondly, amendment No. 5, which concerns the public interest test, seems to leave the clause too broadly drafted. Undercover operations are specifically dealt with in New Zealand statute as undercover operations. In any case, the exposure of most undercover operations would endanger the safety of those operatives. We are looking at the exceptional cases where revelations would endanger undercover agents when what they were trying to do was to prevent serious crime that was not physically dangerous to anyone else or to them if it was revealed who they were. There is probably therefore some need for a clause, but not that one. It needs to be more narrowly drawn. On amendment No. 6, I see the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). His draft could be construed as more narrow. It is certainly what the New Zealand statute says and for that reason it has an advantage. The distinction seems to be very fine. I could see a circumstance in which one might even do it the other way around. However, I will be interested to hear what the Minister says on that. I am not certain about amendments Nos. 8 and 4, which are about making credibility a condition rather than a factor. Credibility appears to me to be a matter of degree rather than an on/off matter. What would happen in a case where there was some doubt about credibility but also corroboration? For that reason, it is probably better as a factor than as a condition, but again I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it. On the Conservative amendment No. 21, which would put in ““death or serious injury”” rather than ““safety””, I am unsure whether I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about ““serious”” being a cause of confusion. Indeed, that word might offer some advantage. However, there is a question about somebody who is threatened with abduction. Is that a matter of their safety, whether or not they are threatened with an injury or an assault? There is some argument for the Government's draft as it is —[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) says that there are grounds for both, and that implies some sort of redraft to ensure that both are included. On amendment No. 22, which is about reasonableness, I am convinced by the argument made by the hon. Member for Hendon. If one looks at clause 4(6), it plainly refers back to condition A and to nothing else. In so far as it is an objective or subjective test, it is about any reasonable fear. To decide whether a fear is reasonable, one has to assess the reasonableness of the fears. I do not see what would be added by the amendment.