Clause 21
5:45 pm
Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I am sorry, we have been making such good progress that we are going faster than I can read my writing. That is a doctor’s issue rather than anything else. I have a question about clause 21, which is designed to disapply the time limit in relation to orders made under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. An application for such an order is made to a magistrates court. Under section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, a court is prevented from hearing a complaint unless the complaint was made
“within six months from the time when...the matter of complaint arose.”
The explanatory notes suggest that such orders do interfere with the right to respect for family life, but because the orders are preventive not punitive, and given the existing safeguards, those interferences are justified. However, the change to the current regime has the potential, as I understand it, to weaken the existing safeguards by—this is my reading—permitting applications for orders to be made in respect of events that have taken place more than six months previously. Potentially, that would allow an order to be made at any point after the initial conviction or caution, even if that conviction or caution was from many years ago.
The position is not entirely clear to me. I would be grateful if the Government confirmed whether what I have described is their intention and, if so, whether disapplication of section 127 is necessary. For example, is there any evidence of cases in which, because of section 127, the authorities have been unable to seek orders because of the six-month time limit? I hope that that is clear. I am asking for clarification only.