Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Bach (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 13 July 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.


Coroners and Justice Bill

I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. Perhaps I may start by giving a few statistics, which may be of use to the Committee. From July 2008 to the end of May 2009, the CPS made 232 anonymity applications to the courts. Of those, 206 were granted and 26 were refused. Of the 206 granted, 79 were for undercover officers, 63 for test purchase officers and 57 were for civilians. The final seven were other investigators or interpreters. Of the 26 applications that were refused, 21 were for civilian witnesses and five were for undercover police officers. Of the 232 applications, 222 were made to the Crown Court, one to the youth court and nine to the magistrates’ court. Of the nine applications made to the magistrates’ court, five were granted and four were refused. I hope that that is helpful. In that period, two special counsel requests were made to the Attorney-General, both of which she granted. These three amendments would make statutory provision for special counsel or, as described in two of the amendments, independent counsel. We consider the amendments to be unnecessary. The Bill makes no provision for special counsel because courts may already ask the Attorney-General to appoint special counsel to assist with applications for witness anonymity orders and can be expected to do so where they consider it necessary. This option is set out in a practice direction issued on 28 August 2008 by the then president of the Queen’s Bench Division following the implementation of the emergency legislation. If any party to the proceedings raises the question of special counsel, the court is already in practice bound to consider it. The tradition is that under current arrangements the court asks the Attorney-General, and it is the Attorney-General who appoints the special counsel. The Attorney-General exercises a general discretion in this area and it would be inappropriate to suggest that, for example, she will normally comply with the court’s request, although she has done so on the two occasions where the request has been made so far.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c975 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Disclosure of information Crime Bail Administration of justice Detainees Crimes of violence Custodial treatment Evidence Homicide Intimidation Ethnic groups Immunity from prosecution Protection Police Prosecutions Public appointments Public consultation Offensive weapons Magistrates' courts Sentencing Terrorism Vulnerable adults Young offenders Witnesses Trials Video recordings Reoffenders Sentencing Council for England and Wales
Legislation
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk