My Lords, one can see from the structure of this very unsatisfactory part of the Bill that an application has to be made by an enforcement authority with the consent of the Attorney-General. My noble friend’s amendment sets a threshold for the application, which would not be considered either by the enforcement authority or by the Attorney-General unless it concerned a hateful crime. It is not too difficult to interpret that expression. Clause 157 sets out what the court has to consider in determining applications. These are not just the matters set out in subsection (3)—which, as many noble Lords have said, are very indistinct and open to the discretion of the judge who hears the application. Under subsection (2)(b), the court, ""may take account of such other matters as it considers relevant"."
The judge has complete discretion when considering whether to make an order, and may consider matters apart from those listed in the Bill. Any criticism that the term used by my noble friend is vague pales into insignificance when one has regard to the scheme that the Government have introduced.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 5 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
714 c417 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:40:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592821
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592821
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592821