Coroners and Justice Bill

It will be for the courts to decide how to use these clauses. We believe that the courts are quite capable of doing so. It is for the judgment of the House whether it thinks that courts are that capable, but we think that they are and that not only the criteria in the Bill but also the general duties of courts under the Human Rights Act will lead them to sensible decisions in any case that comes in front of them. I am aware of Amendments 106A and 107A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which seek to amend the factors that a court has to consider before imposing an order. The amendments have the effect of explicitly requiring the courts to have regard to the right to freedom of expression and peaceful enjoyment of property and the extent to which the imposition of an order is a proportionate interference with those rights. We have considered his proposals carefully, but we do not believe that it is right to amend the scheme in that way. We have already set out clearly in the Explanatory Notes our firm view that the scheme complies with the convention rights. As noble Lords will know, any interference with the right to freedom of expression is justified under the convention if it is in accordance with law, in pursuance of a legitimate aim—in this case the protection of the rights of others and the protection of morals—and necessary in democratic society—the latter term referring to there being a pressing social need for the interference—and that the means employed are proportionate to the legitimate aims being pursued. Interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property is justified under the convention when the interference is in the public interest, subject to conditions provided by law and is proportionate to the aim pursued. The detailed reasons why any interference with convention rights that may result from the operation of the scheme is fully justified and therefore compatible with the convention are set out in the Explanatory Notes. Any order made applying the scheme set out in the Bill will accordingly be consistent with the convention. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill did not raise any general concerns regarding the scheme. It simply raised one detailed point about Clause 151(3)(f), which is addressed in Amendment 106A, to which I will turn shortly. Noble Lords will also recall that under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act the courts are already required to act compatibly with convention rights and will therefore need to do so when applying this new scheme. The courts will not impose an order if to do so would in fact be an unjustifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression or the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. The amendments requiring the courts to consider the convention rights are therefore unnecessary. It is also—