1.  We agree with the analysis in the Bill's Explanatory Notes that the Bill is compatible with Article 6 ECHR, on the basis of the express protection for the right to a fair trial and the discretion left to the trial judge to determine that issue. (Paragraph 1.9)

2.  We believe that the Bill contains adequate protections for the right to a fair trial and does not therefore risk incompatibility with Article 6(1) or 6(3)(d) ECHR. We welcome the fact that courts will be required by s. 6 of the Human Rights Act to apply the statutory provisions compatibly with the right to a fair trial, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and by the House of Lords in Davis. (Paragraph 1.15)

3.  We welcome that the Bill requires the court to have regard to six enumerated relevant considerations when deciding whether the preconditions to the making of a witness anonymity order are satisfied. Each of those considerations has a sound basis in the case-law. We welcome that the list of considerations was added to in the Commons to include whether the evidence from the anonymous witness might be the sole or decisive evidence against the defendant. This is an important consideration in the Strasbourg case-law. We also welcome that the list of relevant considerations is not intended to be exhaustive. (Paragraph 1.17)

4.  There may be merit in extending the list of relevant considerations in clause 5 of the Bill to include the two additional factors in the New Zealand Evidence Act 2006. Clause 5 was not debated in detail in the Commons and deserves closer scrutiny than it has so far received. We draw this to the attention of the House of Lords. (Paragraph 1.21)

5.  We welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to consider the role special counsel might play in ensuring that applications for witness anonymity orders are dealt with fairly in advance of publication of the Law Reform, Victims and Witnesses Bill. We intend to return to this issue in our scrutiny of that Bill. (Paragraph 1.32)

6.  We recommend that the Bill be amended to give the trial judge a discretion to appoint special counsel to represent the interests of both the accused and the witness at hearings for anonymity orders. This would also address the problem that the magistrates court may have no power to appoint special counsel. (Paragraph 1.33)

7.  It is regrettable that inadequate time was available for detailed consideration of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill in the Commons. As a result, the majority of the clauses in the Bill, and many of the amendments tabled to those clauses, were not subject to scrutiny in Committee. We draw the attention of the House of Lords to this issue. (Paragraph 1.34)

8.  We will give fuller consideration to the human rights implications of the provisions in this Bill as part of our scrutiny of the Law Reform, Victims and Witnesses Bill in the next parliamentary session. (Paragraph 1.35)