Clause 4 - Service of process otherwise than by post
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
The amendment deals with the vagueness in the wording of clause 4(1), which reads:
''Process to which section 3 applies may, instead of being served by post, be served on a person outside the United Kingdom in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State.''
In terms of legal process, that is extraordinarily vague, but I think that it is that way for a purpose, and there may be many circumstances in other countries that cannot reasonably be anticipated. However, the rules governing service of process in the UK are clearly set out in rules of court, and one would expect, if not the same rules of court to apply, then at very least that the Secretary of State would consider that the broad categories of alternatives that might be permissible within the legal system should be set out in the rules of court. Otherwise, we are effectively throwing away both legal control and, through the fact that the issue is a matter for resolution of the House of Commons, democratic control of the process. Perhaps ''process'' comes into these debates too often, and in too many different senses; we are talking about the process of process, or the way in which process is served.
There must be some ground rules to ensure compatibility with human rights legislation—that was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—and many other things if we are to avoid challenge. That is not because there is no obligation to comply; clearly, the matter is not open to challenge in the first instance. However, once someone has come back to this country as a result of process being served, and has possibly had further processes served on him or her as a result, or has received a requirement to appear in court in the United Kingdom, the issue of whether that process was acceptable might be open to challenge, if there were no rules to govern it.