• Accessibility
• Email alerts
• RSS feeds
• Contact us

House of Lords

Session 2014 - 15 Internet Publications Other Bills before Parliament

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Commons insistence, disagreement and amendments in lieu

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Commons insistence, disagreement and amendments in lieu
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 30, the bill as first printed for the Lords.]
Clause 29
Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
“( )     No female, nor any male under the age of fifteen, may be placed in
a secure college.”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 74 for the following reason—
74A	Because it is not appropriate to prevent the detention in secure colleges of males under the
	age of 15 and females.
	LORDS INSISTENCE AND REASON
	The Lords insist on their Amendment No. 74 for the following reason—
74B	Because the Lords remain of the view that it would be inappropriate to detain females, and
	males under the age of fifteen, in a secure college.
	COMMONS INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU
	The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 74 but propose
	Amendment 74C in lieu—
74C	Page 72, line 18, at end insert—
	“(6)     Subsection (7) applies to an order under this section the effect of
	which is to bring into force the Secretary of State’s power to provide
	secure colleges for the detention of any or all of the following—
	(a)     persons who are male and aged under 15;
	(b)     persons who are female.
	HL Bill 82 55/4
	2
	(7)     A statutory instrument containing the order may not be made
	unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved
	by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(8)     The reference in subsection (6) to the Secretary of State’s power to
	provide secure colleges is to the power under section 43(1)(c) of the
	Prison Act 1952 (as inserted by section 29 of this Act).”
Clause 64
Page 64, line 35, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 64, line 37, leave out “not” and insert “decline to”
Page 65, line 10, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 65, line 13, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 65, line 33, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 65, line 40, leave out “must” and insert “may”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 for the
following reason—
102A	Because it is appropriate to impose duties, rather than to confer discretions, on the High
	Court and the Upper Tribunal in connection with judicial review proceedings in which it
	is highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially
	different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.
	LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU
	The Lords do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102, but
	propose Amendment No. 102B in lieu of those Amendments—
102B	Page 65, line 46, at end insert—
	“( )     The duties of the court or tribunal under section 31(2A), (3B) and (3C) of the
	Senior Courts Act 1981, or section 16(3B), (3C) and (3D) of the Tribunals,
	Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, are subject to the discretion of the court
	or tribunal to act otherwise where it considers it in the public interest to do
	so in all the circumstances of the case.”
	COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
	The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 102B, but propose Amendments Nos.
	102C, 102D, 102E, 102F, 102G, 102H, 102I, 102J, 102K, 102L and 102M in lieu—
102C	Page 65, line 3, at end insert—
	“(2B)     The court may disregard the requirements in subsection (2A)(a) and (b) if
	it considers that it is appropriate to do so for reasons of exceptional public
	interest.
	3
	(2C)     If the court grants relief or makes an award in reliance on subsection (2B),
	the court must certify that the condition in subsection (2B) is satisfied.””
	Page 65, line 13, at end insert—
	“(3D)     The court may disregard the requirement in subsection (3C) if it considers
	that it is appropriate to do so for reasons of exceptional public interest.
	(3E)     If the court grants leave in reliance on subsection (3D), the court must
	certify that the condition in subsection (3D) is satisfied.””
102E	Page 65, line 21, for “section 31(2A)” substitute “subsections (2A) and (2B) of
	section 31”
	Page 65, line 22, for “applies” substitute “apply”
102G	Page 65, line 23, for “it applies” substitute “they apply”
102H	Page 65, line 25, at end insert—
	“(5B)     If the tribunal grants relief in reliance on section 31(2B) of the Senior Courts
	Act 1981 as applied by subsection (5A), the tribunal must certify that the
	condition in section 31(2B) as so applied is satisfied.””
102I	Page 65, line 40, at end insert—
	“(3E)     The tribunal may disregard the requirement in subsection (3D) if it
	considers that it is appropriate to do so for reasons of exceptional public
	interest.
	(3F)     If the tribunal grants permission in reliance on subsection (3E), the tribunal
	must certify that the condition in subsection (3E) is satisfied.””
102J	Page 65, line 42, for “section 31(2A)” substitute “subsections (2A) and (2B) of
	section 31”
102K	Page 65, line 43, for “applies” substitute “apply”
102L	Page 65, line 44, for “it applies” substitute “they apply”
102M	Page 65, line 46, at end insert—
	“(6B)     If the tribunal makes an award in reliance on section 31(2B) of the Senior
	Courts Act 1981 as applied by subsection (6A), the tribunal must certify
	that the condition in section 31(2B) as so applied is satisfied.””
Clause 65
Page 66, line 10, after “paragraph” insert “or, notwithstanding a failure to do so, the
court in its discretion considers that it is nevertheless appropriate to grant the
applicant leave to make the application for judicial review”
Page 66, line 32, after “paragraph” insert “or, notwithstanding a failure to do so, the
tribunal in its discretion considers that it is nevertheless appropriate to grant the
applicant permission or leave to apply for relief”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106 for the reason
set out at No. 106A.
	4
Clause 66
Page 67, line 1, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 67, line 7, leave out “must” and insert “may”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106 for the following
reason—
106A	Because it is appropriate to impose duties, rather than confer discretions, on the High
	Court, the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in connection with information about
	the financing of applications for judicial review.
	LORDS INSISTENCE AND REASON
	The Lords insist on their Amendments Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106 for the following
	reason—
	Because the High Court, the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal should have a
	reasonable degree of discretion in connection with information about the financing of
	applications for judicial review.
	COMMONS INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
	The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 103, 104, 105 and
	106, but propose Amendments 106E and 106 F in lieu of those Amendments—
106E	Page 66, line 21, at end insert—
	“(3AA)     Rules of court under subsection (3)(b) that specify information
	identifying those who are, or are likely to be, sources of financial
	support must provide that only a person whose financial support
	(whether direct or indirect) exceeds, or is likely to exceed, a level set
	out in the rules has to be identified.
	This subsection does not apply to rules that specify information
	described in subsection (3A)(b).””
	Page 66, line 43, at end insert—
	“(3AA)     Tribunal Procedure Rules under subsection (3)(b) that specify
	information identifying those who are, or are likely to be, sources of
	financial support must provide that only a person whose financial
	support (whether direct or indirect) exceeds, or is likely to exceed,
	a level set out in the rules has to be identified.
	This subsection does not apply to rules that specify information
	described in subsection (3A)(b).””