Clause 86 - Alteration of place fixed for Crown Court trial
Courts Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)
I am not entirely sure that the amendment would achieve what the hon. Gentleman hopes it would, but I will not be too pedantic about drafting issues. I will take it that this is a probing amendment, intended to flush out the true reasons behind clause 86.
We feel that we need to aid the simplification of court procedures wherever that is possible, and to help give courts as much flexibility as possible so that they can manage the cases before them. The amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful in that respect.
Clause 86 simplifies the proceedings of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Section 76 of that Act sets out what has to be done if the defendant or the prosecution wants to alter the location of the trial of a case before the Crown court. If the defendant or the prosecutor is dissatisfied with the location, they can apply to the court for a direction varying the place of the trial. Section 76 requires such an application to be dealt with by a High Court judge in open court. The time has come for those provisions to be changed. In most cases, they are unnecessary. An unnecessary delay in proceedings can be caused by the requirement for there to be both a High Court judge and—in particular—an open court hearing, simply on the issue of moving the location of the trial.
Clause 86 makes it clear that those applications do not have to be dealt with by a High Court judge or held in open court. They can be dealt with by the presiding judge in the normal way, without the open court process. I hope that I have managed to clarify the purpose of clause 86.