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

I beg to move amendment 399, in clause 76, page 45, line 7, at end insert —

‘(za) the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division),’.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 200, in clause 76, page 45, line 10, at end add ‘, or

(d) The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and the Supreme Court.’.

Amendment 375, in clause 80, page 45, line 35, after first ‘Court’, insert ‘the High Court’.

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

It may be that the purpose of the amendments has fallen away owing to amendments that were not accepted earlier when I invited the Committee to accept a similar system for the coroners courts as we have for the criminal courts. Amendment 399 adds two categories of Appeal Court to subsection (6). I want to add High Court, Queen’s bench division. That would deal with appeals from the Crown court or magistrates court and from the coroners, dealing with matters equivalent to the divisional court—I think it is now called the administrative court, but that does not matter. It may well be that since all that does not come into the Bill, my use of the High Court, Queen’s bench division, as an appeal court may have lost its relevance.

Amendment 200 would include the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and the Supreme Court. If the Government have their way, the Judicial Committee will turn into the Supreme Court and leave this building. It will be a huge white elephant across the road, established at vast expense—a total waste of money—but it appears that the Judicial Committee will translate itself into the Supreme Court unless we can do something about it. In any event, appeals might go from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords with either the leave of the Court of Appeal or of the House of Lords. It is interesting that we do not appear to have legislated for that possibility.

Finally, I think the purpose of amendment 375 has probably fallen away as a result of this morning’s discussion.

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

The hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, right about the amendments that were meant to bring the coroners courts into the ambit, given that we did not agree earlier that the provisions ought to extend to the coronial system.

Amendment 200 would allow the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and, from October this year, the Supreme Court to discharge or vary a witness anonymity order. The Bill specifies the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and the Court Martial Appeal Court being given power to vary or discharge a trial order in connection with an appeal by the defendant if they feel that there is a need to do so. We do not consider that it is necessary to extend such powers to the House of Lords, which is only ever seized of cases when a point of law of general public importance is involved. Therefore, it is hard to see that that court will  need to deal with an anonymity order, but under a general power in section 35(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 for the purpose of disposing of an appeal,

“the House of Lords may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal or may remit the case to the Court.”

That should give sufficient power in the rare event that it might ever feel the need to discharge or vary such an order itself. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

At present, the House of Lords can decide points of law or witness anonymity orders that would then return to the Court of Appeal for it to deal with as appropriate, following the guidance of the House of Lords. On that basis, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

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

I generally do and I will, or I will and I do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.