Clause 13 - Appeal to Crown Court
Criminal Justice Bill
9:45 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 25, in
clause 13, page 9, line 25, at end insert—
''(e) that the person concerned does not enter a specified postal area.
(f) that the person concerned does not come within a specified distance of a property.
(g) that the person concerned resides at a particular address.
(h) that the person concerned makes no contact with another person or persons.''
The amendment was the inspiration of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who from his experience as a deputy district judge questions the state of the appeal to the Crown court under clause 13. It may also shorten matters on clause 14 that the principle that the old appeal procedures of the High Court should be removed and substituted with an appeal to the Crown court. That strikes us as sensible, although it may be slightly inconvenient for members of my profession who will no longer be able to pop over to the Bear Garden at the Royal Courts of Justice and will have to go out to Crown courts in distant towns.
The question arises whether the conditions or circumstances in which one can appeal against conditions of bail as set out in subsection (3) are too narrowly drafted. The conditions are:
''(a) that the person concerned resides away from a particular place or area and at a place other than a bail hostel,
(b) for the provision of a surety or sureties or the giving of a security,
(c) that the person concerned remains indoors between certain hours, or
(d) imposed under section 3(6ZAA) of the 1976 Act (requirements with respect to electronic monitoring).''
We seek to add four matters that, in my experience and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, are frequently imposed conditions.
Reading the explanatory notes, I was conscious that the old High Court procedure may have been limited in the way proposed in the clause. However, that came as a surprise to me, because the appeals that I recollect against or for bail in the High Court covered a wide range of issues and could often lead to substantial variations in bail. That may have arisen simply because one was normally appealing against the refusal of a grant of bail rather than the conditions. It is a while since I last made such an application and my memory may be rusty on that point.
However, even if that were the case, seeing as we are setting up a new regime it seems there is no reason why the Committee should not try to improve on the old system unless it will place too onerous a burden on the Crown court. The four areas that we have proposed as being within the Crown court's jurisdiction to grant a
variation strike as us sensible. If they will not cause the Crown court serious inconvenience in dealing with such applications, considering the other conditions that can be varied, could they be included?
The justifying criterion for the amendment is that if conditions have been wrongly imposed along the lines set out here they can cause a defendant substantial inconvenience. That in itself would merit and justify the Crown court being able to consider the conditions that we propose. I would be grateful for the Minister's views.