You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Business Papers > Public Bills before Parliament > Bill home page

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

corrected marshalled list of motions to be moved
on consideration of commons amendments

[The page and line number references are to HL Bill 30, the bill as first printed for the Lords.]



MOTION A

LORDS AMENDMENT 74

Clause 29

74

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.

(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).”

A

Lord Faulks to move, That this House do not insist on its Amendment 74 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 74C.



MOTION B

LORDS AMENDMENTS 97 to 102

Clause 64

97

Page 64, line 35, leave out “must” and insert “may”

98

Page 64, line 37, leave out “not” and insert “decline to”

99

Page 65, line 10, leave out “must” and insert “may”

100

Page 65, line 13, leave out “must” and insert “may”

101

Page 65, line 33, leave out “must” and insert “may”

102

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.

(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.””

102D

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”

102F

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.””

B

Lord Faulks to move, That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102B and
do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102C to 102M.



MOTION C

LORDS AMENDMENTS 103 to 106

Clause 65

103

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”

104

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.

Clause 66

105

Page 67, line 1, leave out “must” and insert “may”

106

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—

106D

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 106F 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).””

106F

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).””

C

Lord Faulks to move, That this House do not insist on its Amendments 103 to 106
and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106E and 106F.

Prepared 21st January 2015