Clause 1 - Breach of non-molestation order to be a criminal offence
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
This has been an interesting debate. While I appreciate the theory of the maintenance of the twin-track approach, I cannot help but think that, in reality, civil jurisdiction and enforcement is largely going to disappear.
Consider the example of a non-molestation order with a power of arrest attached. It is breached and the police arrive. They take the individual concerned, be it he or she, to the police station. It is true that they could bring that person before the country court the following morning. On the other hand, they could charge that person then and there and bring them before the magistrates court the following morning.
Something in my mind suggests that, once a criminal sanction exists, it is more likely to be used than a civil sanction, especially when placed in the hands of a criminal law enforcement authority. I just want the Government to think about the issue, because I have the feeling that, in reality, the civil jurisdiction route is going to die. Indeed, one of the unintended consequences may be that far fewer non-molestation orders have powers of arrest attached to them, because it will not be necessary any more.
So, I would have thought that, over time, the power of arrest attached to a non-molestation order is going to vanish. It is simply going to be a non-molestation order, and breaching that is a police matter. The county court will disappear from the picture
completely. As I said earlier, I have anxieties about that because the county court tries to take, to use a word much abused in the House—I try to refrain from using it, but for once I cannot think of a better word—an holistic approach to family matters. It tries to square circles and smooth difficulties, rather than visiting penal sanctions on individuals.
That is desirable, because of the context in which family jurisdiction so often has to be invoked. One of the consequences of the changes will be that we move towards a much more mechanistic system and that, once the order has been made, that is it and the individual is in a criminal jurisdiction. I may be wrong, but I think that that is something that the Government should think about.
I do not think that there is necessarily an easy solution, unless the Government decide, through the mechanism of the CPS, to publish guidelines to try to identify which category of case ought to go to the magistrates court and which ought to return to the judge. Of course, there is a risk attached to that, which is that going down that road may undermine one of the purposes of the legislation.
I accept the criticisms that have been made by the Minister and others on the first two amendments in the group. It remains the case that my personal experience is that it is astonishing how often one has to repeat to people what an order is before they understand it. How often have I sat in court and listened to the judge covering the same ground again and again, saying, ''This means X'', yet, two weeks later, the person has still failed to understand?
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.