Clause 76
Coroners and Justice Bill
2:45 pm
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.