Clause 34

Crime and Security Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 6:45 pm on 9 February 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Application for variation or discharge of injunction

Photo of James Brokenshire James Brokenshire Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

I beg to move amendment 170, in clause 34, page 66, line 19, leave out ‘any’ and insert ‘that’.

We shall see if we can rattle through a few points before 7 o’clock and supper. This is a probing amendment to help us understand the purpose of the clause, which would apply to all gang injunctions. The clause states  that if an application to vary or discharge an order is made but dismissed, no further applications can be made by any person without the consent of the court.

The provision appears to apply not only to injunctions or orders that are available for those under 18, but more generally. It would be helpful to understand why that is needed. It also seems strange because it cannot have been developed by way of practice—we know that there has not been any practice. Why is the measure being introduced at this point? Why was it not considered at the outset? Why should an application of one party prejudice the application of another? In any event, one of the applications would have to be determined by the court. If one person has applied and been unsuccessful, there is perhaps merit in saying that that person cannot reapply, to prevent an abuse of process. Equally, another party may wish to apply in certain circumstances.

It is a question of understanding what prejudice or administrative burden the Minister is seeking to deal with or correct in the clause. If it is thought there might be abuse it would be useful to know, so that we can understand better why the clause is in the Bill. The amendment would make the clause say that the application relates to that person—in other words, if a person has applied for some form of variation, they should be prevented from making a further application. The question is why that should prejudice an application by any other person.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Minister of State (Home Office) (Crime and Policing)

I hope that the points made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch will be deemed unnecessary, because the clause meets those objectives. Clause 34 provides that once the court has dismissed an application by either party to vary or discharge the injunction, no future application by either party will be heard unless the court consents. The straightforward purpose is to ensure that we prevent repeated and vexatious applications to the court, which I know the hon. Gentleman would not wish.

The amendment seeks, in essence, to provide each party with an automatic bite of the cherry before requiring the consent of the court to hear an application to vary or discharge. Once the court has dismissed an application to vary or discharge, it is required to consider any future applications made by either party before deciding whether a full hearing is necessary. The clause is proportionate and will ensure that we do not get vexatious applications to the court. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Photo of James Brokenshire James Brokenshire Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. Having heard his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr. Watts.)

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield

I wish Members of the Committee a happy, restful and enjoyable half-term break. The Committee will meet again at half-past 10 on Tuesday 23 February.

Committee rose.