---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

Fear is inherently an internal state. Some fears can be judged by others to be reasonable and some to be unreasonable, and the use of the word ““subjective”” is part of the problem, which is why it is probably better avoided. Once a court has decided what a witness's internal state is and how reasonable it is, the question is how it uses that information to judge safety. However, safety itself can plausibly have objective and subjective elements, because it is both an internal feeling and an external state. Some further drafting work on the clause might well be needed. I do not want to comment on amendment No. 31, except to say that those of us who have spent many years trying to work out the difference between property damage, financial loss and pure economic loss would not want the term ““financial loss”” to be used in statute without further definition. I turn finally to amendment No. 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), which would remove the reference to property damage. Usually, the threat of serious property damage such as arson, or even the threat to the hon. Member for Hendon's car, would carry some threat of personal injury, but not necessarily. As my hon. Friend said, the question is what cases are envisaged in which it would not carry that threat, which would mean that something is added by the reference in the clause to ““serious damage to property””. It would have to be something like a threat to burn down a lock-up shop at night when the witness would not be there. What are we trying to get at here? Is that enough of a reasonable fear to justify making an anonymity order? The clause lacks a test to decide whether the threat is serious enough. Whether injury is threatened to property or the person is not the most important matter.