Clause 8 - Interim orders
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
5:15 pm
Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)
I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 23 and 22, in my name, and shall go on to discuss amendment No. 124. I believe that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green intends to speak to some of the amendments in the group, including amendments Nos. 123 and 124.
Clause 8 is important because it deals with interim orders, which are related to free-standing applications to the magistrates court for drinking banning orders. The measures and clauses in the Bill require some consultation between relevant authorities such as the police, the local authority and various officers, rather than members, of the local authority. As I said in an earlier debate, the problem with that scenario is the potential for delay, to which the Minister gave her answer as best she could.
I assume that in clause 8 an interim order means what it would mean in normal legal terms—an order that could be made in a great hurry, when speed was of the essence. That is an odd concept to put against the concept of taking one's time—[Interruption.] Forgive me, Mr. Forth. I am distracted by constant noises outside in the Corridor, as I imagine we all are. The concept that I have just described seems odd when one considers that there will inevitably be delays with county court applications and appeals to the High Court.
Clause 8(3), for which I see no justification, troubles me. It states:
''An application for an interim order against an individual may be made without notice being given to that individual.''
I ask myself why on earth an individual should not have notice of the application. I appreciate that in some court proceedings, such as domestic violence proceedings, there is a need for immediate action. Take a case in which a husband or wife is assaulting their spouse on a daily basis—[Interruption.] Really, Mr. Forth, I am finding it hard to continue, because of the constant comings and goings of other people in and out of the Room, and the immense noise outside.
That has occupied 30 seconds; now I will carry on. There are emergency cases, when people need to apply to court for a ruling overnight without notice. A spouse might need to apply within one hour—to go to the court straight away and seek an injunction. In such cases, there is no time to give notice to the respondent, as it might be vital that the court grant the application in a matter of hours. That is the point—that immediate protection is needed. That is an interim order in matrimonial proceedings, but why is there an interim order in the Bill? What is so urgent? If the police believe the defendant to be guilty of a criminal offence, he or she will have been arrested and might be in custody. If so, why should not that person receive notice of an interim application? It is easy to arrange, and it is natural justice to give notice of proceedings to someone who might be affected by them.
If, on the other hand, the police have charged the defendant in the criminal proceedings and released him on bail to an address in, say, Somerset, the position is plainly not so acute that an interim application must be made. If it were, no doubt the person would have been in custody. I am therefore at a loss to know why there are no provisions saying that the Government may, by all means, make an application for an interim order, but stating that they must give notice to the individual concerned.
Amendment No. 22 follows amendment No. 23 by saying that an application can be made if 24 hours' notice is given and served on the individual concerned, because at least that individual would then have some form of notification that an application was about to be made.
Amendment No. 24 would remove subsection (7). I am concerned about the renewal of interim orders. When an interim order is made in relation to, for example, a case of matrimonial violence, the courts are extremely careful not to renew orders indefinitely without holding a substantive hearing. After all, an interim order is meant to be a very short-term sticking plaster before the main application is properly heard. That would make sense to anyone. I am therefore concerned, as are many others who have expressed their views to me, that an interim order can be renewed once, or more than once. How often could that be? Could it be renewed on one, two, three, four or five occasions? Will the Minister explain at some length her thinking about the need for a statute that permits renewed applications to be made—and, what is more, without any notice being given to the respondent to the application?