| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I understand why the Minister has tabled the amendment; that is, in order to overcome an ambiguity. But I never cease to be surprised that we do not just overcome the ambiguity by setting out a clear definition of what "family proceedings" means. He has covered the ambiguity but really by filling in the
cracks rather than setting out a new definition, which I would have preferred. However, on that basis I am very happy with the explanation given by the Minister.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Further Provision about scope of Family Procedure Rules]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 124
- Page 33, line 11, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will ensure that the regime for rules of court and practice directions in the family justice system will be as close as possible to that in the civil justice system. I believe I should offer a moment of frankness here and freely admit that this government amendment has been tabled at this stage because it was overlooked when the Bill was drafted.
When developing the family provisions in the Bill some trouble was taken to ensure that where appropriate the model of the civil justice system was followed as closely as possible. A similar provision to this amendment is included in the Civil Procedure Act, which allows civil procedure rules to delegate matters to be dealt with by practice directions. In order to ensure parity of approach with the civil jurisdiction and to ensure that there is both flexibility and adaptability built into the family justice system, it is necessary to introduce this provision.
It may help if I give a practical example of when it may be necessary to use this power. Part 52 of the civil procedure rules contains general rules about appeals in the civil jurisdiction. As I am sure many noble Lords will appreciate, there are many different types of appeal that can reach the courts, including not only appeals from lower courts but also appeals from tribunals and other bodies. Some of those appeals are very specialised and prior to the introduction of the civil procedure rules particular provisions had to be contained within individual rules. That is no longer the case and those matters are now dealt with in the practice direction supplementing Part 52.
The family procedure rule committee will have to be convinced that the matter is suitable for delegating to practice directions before making the necessary rule amendments to bring it into effect. We have tabled the amendment in order to permit the same degree of flexibility in the family justice system as exists within the civil justice system as a whole. I believe that it is a sensible, modernising and updating addition to the way in which the system works. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I raise just one short point, simply because I am aware that there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about what is intended by the amendment. The point is that some people have read this as suggesting that the reference to directions means directions made by the Lord Chancellor. As I understand it, that is not the case, and this means practice directions in the ordinary sense of
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for raising that issue. As I understand it, the amendment has the effect of allowing family procedure rules to delegate matters which could be dealt with by rules to the President of the Family Division to be dealt with by practice direction. I hope that clarifies the point raised by the noble Lord. I am sure that it does.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74 [Process for making Family Procedure Rules]:
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 127 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 127A:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved].
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 128A:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Power to amend legislation in connection with the rules]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 129:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Process for making Civil Procedure Rules]:
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 132A:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 133A:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Alteration of place fixed for Crown Court trial]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 134:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 130 and 290 are technical amendments to ensure that Clause 81 is fully effective in removing an unnecessary and inconvenient procedure from the Crown Court. Until now, Section 76 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 has meant that if the defence or prosecution wish to apply to the Crown Court for a trial to take place at a different location of the Crown Court, the application has to be made in open court before a High Court judge. That applies even if there is not an objection.
Clause 81 as amended by the Government will make it clear that it is for the court to decide on the appropriate procedure to be applied in each case of an application to change the venue. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I do, indeed, welcome the amendment. It is a matter which I had the opportunity to raise in Committee in order to seek clarification as to whether an application under this section of the 1981 Act for a variation of the place fixed for Crown Court trial is no longer required to be heard in open court by a judge of the High Court. I recall the Minister stating that Clause 81 amends some of the provisions of Section 76 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which deals with alterations to the place of trial in the Crown Court.
The Minister stated that it had been his intention to amend Section 76(3) in the manner currently set out and to repeal subsection(4) which contains the requirement for a hearing in open court. I welcome the amendment and am grateful to the Government for tabling it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Appeals to Court of Appeal: procedural directions]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 135:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 135, 136, 137, 193, 236, 270, 139, 140, 141, 142 and 271 have two aims: first, they to seek to enhance the role of the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, and, secondly, to assist in producing more streamlined and effective organisation and procedures in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
Under Section 31A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the Registrar of Criminal Appeals undertakes several judicial functions; for example, the variation of bail conditions, the issue of witness orders, grants or refusals of time extensions for appeal or leave to appeal and grant of representation for criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal or House of Lords.
The extension of the powers of the registrar, coupled with the proposed extension of the powers of the single judge—as detailed in Clause 82—would produce a single route by which an application for a procedural direction can be made to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). I put the matter simply: an application for a procedural direction would be made to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The registrar would then assess each application and assign it to the appropriate level—for example, either to himself, a single judge or to the full court.
Those applications with which the registrar is able to deal will be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Lord Chief Justice. Of course, if either the applicant or the prosecution are unhappy with the registrar's directions—or refusal to make a direction—the clause provides them with the ability to renew the application, if they so wish, to a single judge, who may either set aside, vary or confirm any of the procedural directions given by the registrar. In addition, should the applicant or prosecution so wish, they may seek a further review by the full court.
Equivalent provisions have been made for the Courts-Martial Appeal Court. It shares much of the procedure and administration of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The same individual is the registrar for both courts. An equivalent amendment for the Courts-Martial Appeal Court will enable it to benefit from the efficiencies of this new procedure.
This change should allow maximum case management flexibility and make the most efficient use of judicial time and resources. I beg to move.
"( ) Family Procedure Rules may, instead of providing for any matter, refer to provision made or to be made about that matter by directions."
Page 34, line 40, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7),"
Page 34, line 41, at end insert—
"(7) A statutory instrument containing rules altered by the Lord Chancellor is of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the day referred to in subsection (5)(a)."
Page 35, line 2, leave out from first "amend" to "to" in line 3 and insert ", repeal or revoke any enactment"
Page 37, line 6, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7),"
Page 37, line 7, at end insert—
"(7) A statutory instrument containing rules altered by the Lord Chancellor is of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the day referred to in subsection (5)(a).""
Page 37, line 14, at end insert "; and accordingly section 76(4) of the 1981 Act ceases to have effect."
3.30 p.m.
Page 37, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) In section 31A of the 1968 Act (powers of Court of Appeal under Part 1 of that Act exercisable by registrar), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—
"(d) to make orders under section 23(1)(a).",.
and, at the end of paragraph (b), omit "and"."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page