Clause 46 - Power to transfer criminal cases
Courts Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)
Indeed. I was about to say that we have set out where courts should sit, and their location. Clause 30(5) covers several such considerations. We must have regard to victims, witnesses and defendants when deciding whether to transfer a matter. Directions will, in particular, require a court to take account of where the offence was committed and where the majority of witnesses and the person charged with the offence reside. That applies also to transferred matters. We consider that many issues are already covered by clause 30.
Given its wording about representation and the representatives of various parties, an additional difficulty with the amendment is that it does not make clear whether it would require the relevant individuals' views to be ascertained before a case could be transferred. If that meant the views of all the individuals, a lot of work could be involved, which would cause significant delays. It could make the transfer of cases less convenient for everyone, rather than more convenient, which must be our objective.
We do not want additional costs to be incurred. To insist on separate legal representation for each witness, as well as the parties, would be a strange route to go down. We accept that occasional difficulties may be involved about where a case should be heard, but it would not be desirable to impose requirements that may not be necessary in ordinary cases and which may cause delay, extra complexity or cost.
That said, I reiterate the fact that the protections in clause 30(5) ensure that consideration will be given to the location of witnesses and others involved in proceedings. Although I sympathise with the aims behind the amendment, in practical terms it would not be the best measure to take.