Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to clarify what will happen should an individual become subject to committal proceedings because they are suspected of breaching their injunction. Noble Lords will be aware that breach of any civil court order can be dealt with by starting proceedings for contempt of court. Although in this case the alleged contempt is civil in nature, because the court can impose a penalty of imprisonment the Court of Appeal has, perhaps unsurprisingly, held that contempt proceedings should be treated as criminal in nature. That is in order to ensure that Article 6 criminal fair trial guarantees are respected. Of course, one of those criminal fair trial guarantees is the right to representation; another is that the breach must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal has already set aside committal orders sending individuals to prison in some individual cases because the person was not legally represented. Naturally, judges who are dealing with contempt proceedings are well aware of the need to ensure that the process is fair when an individual may face a prison term. Judges cannot force an individual to have legal representation; that is up to the individual. Therefore, the amendment as drafted would cause an anomaly by, in effect, forcing someone to be legally represented even if they did not wish to be. Courts will inquire as to whether the individual wishes such representation and, if so, the matter could in some cases be adjourned in order to obtain that. I am content that this system addresses the concern raised in the amendment. I hope that noble Lords are satisfied that this system, which is in place for breaches of other types of civil court order and which will apply to this injunction regime, already incorporates the right to representation. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.