Proceeding contribution from Geoffrey Cox (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
The first two lines of clause 4(6) state:"““In determining whether the measures to be specified in the order are necessary for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), the court must have regard…to any reasonable fear””," whereas subsection (3)(a) states that the measures to be specified in the order are to be necessary"““in order to protect the safety of the witness or another person or to prevent any serious damage to property””." That is manifestly an objective test. How, in applying an objective test, is it necessary to protect that person's safety? Does one apply what may be the subjective test of fear, even if it is reasonable? The measure is either necessary for safety or it is not. The reasonable fear seems irrelevant.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 478 c1369
- 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 09:30:34 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494782
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494782
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_494782