I was about to come on to the issue of serving the order. It is set out in the Bill that the fact that someone does not know that an order has been served is not necessarily a sufficient excuse, but that is a matter that would be tested in the courts. They would be looking at the action that was to be taken in relation to a breach, and it would be for them to determine what a reasonable excuse would be. An order would be served in person whenever possible, but when that was not possible, we would seek to ensure that an individual was made aware of the order through other mechanisms. We might, for example, seek to serve it at the individual’s last known address or serve the order to file. As I said earlier, similar systems work effectively in other contexts, such as informing foreign nationals about decisions on their immigration status.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness May of Maidenhead
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 December 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
589 c1230 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 08:13:35 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-12-15/14121554000126
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-12-15/14121554000126
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-12-15/14121554000126