Crime and Security Bill

A very fine sight, if I may say so, particularly on the rugby field in the old days and the golf course nowadays—[Laughter.] I am way off the subject, for which I apologise. If the applicant—the police officer—goes to a court on a Friday afternoon, who can guarantee that the application will be heard in the court on the Monday or Tuesday morning? The clerk of the court is not so bound by law. If the clerk is so bound by law, let someone tell me that. The clerk will in fact list the application at the first available opportunity, which might be two, three or four days. Even then, it might get only a 10-minute hearing date, because that is all the court is prepared to give. How does that tie up with a notice saying that the application will be heard in 48 hours? Did the Committee really understand the difference—if there is one—between an interim and a final order? Did the Committee really understand what happens in practice if an application is before the court within, by a miracle, 48 hours? Does anybody understand that in practice—I do not expect any of the civil servants to have the slightest idea about this because they have probably never been in court—somebody stands up and the court says, "Is this a complicated matter?" at which point counsel for the husband or wife says, "Yes, it is, because I wish to fight this. We have to get evidence from the following 10 people and for our case to be heard. We wish to apply for legal aid. We have some work to do to check out the law"? The court is then duty bound in justice to adjourn the matter. What happens then? Does the domestic violence protection notice stay in force? Is the subject of the notice still thrown out of their house? The barrister then asks the district judge, "How soon can you hear the application?" and the latter replies, "Three weeks on Tuesday. That's the first date we've got." Does anybody disbelieve me when I say that that is how the world works in practice? Is the order to continue delayed till three weeks on Tuesday? The district judge then asks the barrister, "How long do you want by way of an adjournment?" to which the barrister replies, "Oh. A fortnight should do, or perhaps three weeks, because I've got witnesses who are going to be away. In fact, can you list it for the month after next?" Where does that leave the court? Can the Minister tell me whether the domestic violence notice remains in force throughout? If it is in force, is that a great thing? Does the Minister intend a notice to remain in force for 36 or 48 days? It is all very well him looking at the civil servants to see whether that is his intention, but I do not know. That is a great, troublesome area, which is why amendment 21, which would mean that the DVPN continues in effect until the application has been determined,""or for seven days if earlier"," is sensible. That is also why amendment 64 is sensible, so that clause 27 states:""If the court adjourns the hearing, the"" notice""continues in effect until the application has been determined"," or for 56 days, whichever is earlier. There need to be limits, and someone in this building needs to understand what actually happens in court. Otherwise, the measure will be largely unworkable.