I disagree with the noble Lord. His point is that if all those things are significant, then the person who can show that they are adversely affected in a significant way would be able to make an application.
I shall explain the process. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, never intends to mislead the Committee; that is the furthest thing from his mind. However, one must think about the process. Before the High Court can reject an application to join as a third party, it will have to hear it. An individual will make an application in which they will say, ““I believe that I have been significantly adversely affected by the making of this order in the following terms; namely””. They will have to set out, in accordance with the three tests I referred to earlier, how they sit within it.
The court will then have an opportunity to read and hear about what the applicant says entitles them to become a third party in the proceedings because they have been adversely affected. It will then be for the court to determine—bearing in mind the nature of the conditions, the content of the order made against that individual and the nature of the concerns referred to in their application—whether or notthey meet the threshold of the court thinking it appropriate for them to be joined as third parties, so that the court can determine whether, in the interests of justice and all the parties concerned, it is appropriate to vary, or otherwise dispose of, the orders or conditions attached. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, says, that people cannot make an application. They get an opportunity to do so and to have their say. The court will then get a chance to determine whether the application falls within the category of ““significant”” issues.
It is important for us to bear in mind that whether a person has been negatively affected in a way which the court considers ““significant”” will quite often be a question of fact, capable of determination, and on which the court can make a judgment. It is therefore likely that these applications can be dealt with appropriately. However, it must be important for the court to determine when someone is affected in a minor, insignificant way, insufficient to entitle them to become a third party. The court should properly be entitled to exclude them from being third parties in those circumstances.
The conditions to be attached to the order will address the mischief identified by the authorities. That is why it is important that, in the civil rules, the authority will have to satisfy the court as to the nature of the order, which third parties may be adversely affected and what steps have been taken to notify or otherwise bring them to the court’s attention. Because of the way in which the investigation was carried out, there may be people who were lawfully carrying out a business which might indirectly be affected by a condition that has been made, but who were not brought to the court’s attention at the time the order was made. It must be right for such a person, when they become adversely affected—that is often how they will find out if they are not told; something will happen to how they do their business and they will realise that they are—to be entitled to go to the court and to say, ““I wasn’t given notice about this. It impinges on me in a significant way. These are the facts I complain of. I wish to be joined as a third party and considered in relation to modification or change of an order, made without my knowledge, by which I have been affected””. We think that process is fair and just, but it must be open to the court to say that in those circumstances it does not deem him to be significantly adversely affected because the effect is minor, that he should not be a party and that it will not entertain him.
In civil proceedings, the High Court is used to third party applicants making an application to join an action because they have a legitimate interest in it.On a daily basis, the High Court has to cometo a judgment about whether those parties should properly be joined in the proceedings. Notwithstanding the fact that the noble Lord spent perhaps the majority of his career in the criminal court, I am sure that he must have trespassed into the civil court on occasion. If he did, I am sure that he will be able to confirm the assertions I have made.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c799-800 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:34:59 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385227
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385227
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385227