Clause 2 - Service of overseas process: supplementary
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)
With regard to the question of ordinary language, I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, I feel slightly uneasy that we may be heading towards a substantial body of case law on what constitutes ordinary language. Subsection (3) states:
''The process must be accompanied by a notice''.
Presumably, if a notice does not accompany the process or if the notice is defective by reason of its being written in extraordinary language, service will not have been made properly. I feel slightly uneasy about the condition being added to the process, although I accept that clarity is a virtue towards which all Government and legal documents should aspire.
I have no hesitation in supporting amendment No. 6, which would include ''legal'' before ''advice''. The notice that the Minister quoted in relation to amendment No. 1 stated that legal advice would be sought. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire says, if it is in the notice it should surely be in the Bill. That point was well made, and I hope that the Government will come back at a later stage with a minor but not insignificant amendment on that point.
I shall speak to amendment No. 117, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. It would insert the words ''a party or'', so that the line would read
''privileges as a party or as a witness as would be accorded to him in proceedings''.
The significant point is that subsection (1) refers to documents requiring
''a person to appear as a party or attend as a witness.''
The rights and privileges of parties and witnesses are different. If such notices are to be served, why should they refer only to the rights of witnesses and not to the rights of parties? The rights of parties, particularly in criminal proceedings, might be more significant than the rights of witnesses. The restriction of liberty stemming from a breach of rights or from an abuse of privilege might be more immediate for a party to a criminal action than would be the case for a witness. I should be interested to hear the Minister's thinking on that.
Lord Goodhart tabled an identical amendment and was told by the Minister in the other place that the provision in the Bill had been lifted more or less direct from the 1990 Act.