Clause 3 - Orders in County Court Proceedings
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
4:41 pm
Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 3, page 3, line 15, after 'proceedings', insert
', which shall be heard by a County Court judge within seven days of the application,'.
Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 25, in clause 9, page 7, line 30, after 'magistrates', insert 'or county'.
No. 26, in clause 9, page 7, line 31, after '2', insert ', 3'.
Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)
I shuddered when I read clause 3, which relates to county court proceedings, because we all know that such proceedings can last interminably—not just for days but for weeks or months. The approach in such courts seems to be different from that in Crown courts and magistrates courts.
The clause provides for somebody who is a relevant authority but not party to the county court proceedings to make an application to be joined to those proceedings in order to apply for a drinking banning order against an individual. The prospect of such an application being heard quickly is remote. Most county courts go into recess over the summer. They do not sit at all in August, and their proceedings drag on not for months but for years. Drinking banning orders, by their very nature, should be sought and imposed with relative speed. After all, if the object is to nip something in the bud, we do not want to wait until the bud has grown, turned into a flower and dropped off the branch. My amendment, therefore, aims to ensure that the county court judge hears the application quickly, rather than permitting it to be made and listed for 56 days hence, and then agreeing to an adjournment at the request of the respondent to the application for a further 56 days. Look what happens, then: months later, there is no progress at all.
Amendment No. 25 refers to clause 9, but it has been linked to this clause because it relates to appeals. I am not sure whether it is sensible to include a county court because one wonders what would happen in relation to a possible appeal by an individual against whom a drinking banning order is made during the course of some form of county court proceedings. That could happen.
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
The civil procedure rules already provide detail in relation to the making and hearing of applications. It is unnecessary to set such matters out in the Bill. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern to ensure that applications are heard speedily, but in this case they will not be freestanding applications for drinking banning orders, they will be made in relation to existing proceedings—perhaps for eviction from a tenancy—in the context of which it is thought appropriate to bring in an application for a drinking banning order. That is similar to what happens in relation to antisocial behaviour orders, when a relative of somebody against whom proceedings are under way ought to have an order made against him because his drinking is causing problems to the neighbours and other families in the area.
This is not a matter of the police deciding that they need an order and going to the county court instead of the magistrates; it is a mechanism for attaching an application to existing proceedings. There is already provision in the civil procedure rules for the time limits to be flexible, and if cases need to be heard urgently, they can be. I know of cases in which people have made urgent applications to county court judges and have had matters dealt with very quickly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the current civil procedure rules are flexible enough to allow that to happen and that we do not need to add anything to the Bill. However, I understand his sentiment and am pleased that he wants such matters to be heard urgently, as do I.
The other amendments refer to technical issues concerning where appeals might lie. Any appeal against an order made in the county court must be made in accordance with part 52 of the civil procedure rules. Appeals against orders made by a district judge will be made to a circuit judge and those against orders made by a circuit judge to the High Court. There is to be no departure from that route in the case of drinking banning orders; the measures have to be seen in the context of existing proceedings in the county court. On that basis, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)
I felt a little reassured by the Minister's comments on the first of my amendments but not at all by those relating to appeal. We are considering a quasi-criminal situation, and if an order is made in the magistrates court there is an appeal, I think, to the Crown court. I shall be corrected if I am wrong; I am not being corrected, so I think I am right. Those are both criminal venues. A case goes straight from a magistrate to a recorder or a Crown court judge, hearing the appeal on a Friday, with no trouble at all.
What, however, do we have in the provision before us? In proceedings in the county court an order is to be made by a county court judge, and it is extraordinary to me that an appeal against that drinking banning order must go to the High Court. I cannot see that any legal aid would be granted in the proceedings; it might be thought preposterous—not necessarily by me—to use public funds in that way for such an appeal. However, appeals to the High Court take months. Does the Minister really intend that someone who has been made subject to a drinking banning order in existing county court proceedings should have a right of appeal only to the High Court of Justice in the Strand? It is an astonishing prospect. However, having given my view, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.