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 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.