Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 377, in clause 70, page 41, line 14, at end insert—

‘(1A) An application for a witness anonymity order to be made in relation to a witness in a coroner’s inquest may be made to the coroner with the coroner’s permission by any party appearing at the inquest.’.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 378, in clause 70, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

‘(9) Where an application either for permission to make an application for a witness anonymity order or for a witness anonymity order is made to a coroner by a party appearing at an inquest that party—

(a) must (unless the coroner directs otherwise) inform the coroner of the identity of the witness, but

(b) is not required to disclose in connection with the application—

(i) the identity of the witness, or

(ii) any information that may enable the witness to be identified,

to any other party to the proceedings or his or her legal representatives.’.

Amendment 380, in clause 70, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

‘(9) The provisions set out in subsections (4) to (8) inclusive apply as appropriate to applications to a coroner as they do to applications in criminal cases.’.

Amendment 381, in clause 71, page 42, line 5, after ‘proceedings’, insert ‘or an inquest’.

Amendment 383, in clause 71, page 42, line 15, after ‘trial’, insert

‘or the inquest being conducted in a manner consistent with the interests of the parties before it being treated fairly.’.

Amendment 384, in clause 72, page 42, line 33, after ‘proceedings’, insert

‘or a party appearing at an inquest’.

Amendment 385, in clause 72, page 42, line 39, after ‘defendant’, insert

‘or resolving the issues in the inquest’.

Amendment 386, in clause 72, page 43, line 1, after ‘case’, insert ‘or inquest’.

Amendment 387, in clause 72, page 43, line 4, after ‘defendant’, insert

‘, or the witness and any party appearing at the inquest or any associates of any party appearing at the inquest’.

Amendment 388, in clause 72, page 43, line 9, after ‘indictment’, insert ‘or at an inquest’.

Amendment 389, in clause 73, page 43, line 12, after second ‘judge’, insert ‘or coroner’.

Amendment 390, in clause 73, page 43, line 14, after ‘defendant’, insert

‘or a party appearing at the inquest’.

Amendment 391, in clause 74, page 43, line 18, after ‘proceedings’, insert ‘or inquest’.

Amendment 392, in clause 74, page 43, line 31, after second ‘proceedings’, insert ‘or party appearing at the inquest’.

Amendment 393, in clause 75, page 43, line 41, after first ‘proceedings’, insert ‘or at an inquest’.

Amendment 394, in clause 75, page 44, line 18, after ‘defendant’, insert ‘or a party appearing’.

Amendment 395, in clause 76, page 44, line 28, after second ‘proceedings”)’, insert ‘or an inquest’.

Amendment 396, in clause 76, page 44, line 33, at end insert ‘or

(c) the verdict or any finding of fact or law by the coroner or inquest jury, as the case may be, is reviewed by the appeal court.’.

Amendment 397, in clause 76, page 44, line 41, after ‘proceedings’, insert ‘or appearing at the inquest’.

Amendment 398, in clause 76, page 45, line 3, after ‘proceedings’, insert

‘or a party appearing at the inquest’.

Amendment 374, in clause 80, page 45, line 34, after ‘court,’, insert ‘a coroner’s court,’.

Amendment 376, in clause 80, page 46, line 1, after ‘court,’, insert ‘a coroner’s court,’.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

Although this group of amendments looks quite large, they all have one purpose: to apply the witness anonymity orders regime, which is currently applicable under the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 and which, if the Bill is enacted, will be folded through into criminal procedure in the Crown courts and magistrates courts, to coroners’ inquests. If witness anonymity procedures need to be applied in the Crown court—we saw this in the de Menezes case—surely they are sometimes likely to be needed in coroners’ inquests. The amendments are therefore designed to  apply the procedure for applications in clause 70, which currently applies to criminal proceedings, to those touching on coroners’ inquests.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

I do not want to reopen a previous debate, but new clause 10, which we considered during the juryless inquests debate, would have had a similar effect to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s proposals, but in very limited circumstances. The difference between his proposals and ours is that his would make the availability of anonymous witnesses a general power of coroners’ courts, whereas ours would have provided for a more limited set of circumstances in which that might happen. Nevertheless, that difference is not a great one and there seems to me to be no obvious argument why anonymous witnesses should not be allowed in coroners’ courts in the same way as in the criminal courts. I ask the Ministers to explain why, throughout our debates about anonymous witnesses, there was a concentration on the adversarial process of the criminal courts when in fact anonymity is often more useful in the circumstance that we are currently discussing than in criminal cases.

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

The short answer is that provisions for anonymity are allowed in the coroners’ courts. I will give a little more explanation than that, but members of the Committee and especially those who were involved in considering the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 will recall that the Davis judgment in the House of Lords, which gave rise to the necessity for that legislation because it struck down the common law rules or had a very different interpretation of the common law than had been thought to exist previously, related only to criminal proceedings. We believe that it is unnecessary to make provision for coroners’ courts in the same way.

The Davis judgment helps us in this respect. Their lordships distinguished between coroners’ inquests and criminal proceedings. They made it clear that their judgment applied only to criminal proceedings. They referred to a 1992 case in which the House had previously approved the admission of anonymous written witness statements into an inquest. It is also clear that coroners have an inherent power to regulate their own proceedings, including permitting a witness to remain anonymous or give evidence from behind a screen, and they do. We therefore believe that the amendments are unnecessary and that applying the regime that has been designed to work in the criminal courts is unnecessary in the inquisitorial system. In that sense, their lordships, in the Davis judgment, agreed.

There are differences between inquisitorial proceedings and criminal proceedings. There is no indictment, no prosecution, no defence and no trial at an inquest. The procedures and rules of evidence suitable for a trial are unsuitable for an inquest. There is no accused likely to be convicted and punished. In addition, the powers of the coroner to control the admission of evidence anonymously are being enhanced elsewhere in the Bill. The amendments are not, therefore, helpful; in fact, they might confuse things. Coroners will be able to give a direction in accordance with rules made under clause 34(2)(e) requiring a name or other matter not to be disclosed except to persons specified in that direction.

David Howarth (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister very much for putting on the record something that I think was mentioned only in passing when we discussed new clause 10. Can she explain why the Secretary of State, when discussing juryless inquests, insisted that the main reason for them was, in his view, that the identities of agents and so on might come out in an inquest in a way that would not happen in a trial?

Maria Eagle (Parliamentary Secretary, Government Equalities Office; Liverpool, Garston, Labour)

I did not deal with that part of the Bill, so I do not know precisely why the case that was discussed at length earlier in the Bill’s passage is different. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for  Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), might know more about that. Nor do I know whether transferring the criminal procedures under discussion into the coronial system would help. I do not believe that it would, because anonymity has been available in inquests such as the de Menezes inquest in which the coroner has thought that it would be of use.