Clause 67 has created a particular type of party, namely a “relevant party”. The relevant party is defined in subsection (8). I have no problem with that definition. However, in his closing remarks the Minister said that if, of course, a person is invited to intervene, as Justice could be invited to intervene, in effect this would not apply. The words are, of course, very specific, because of the presence of the word “must”. I draw attention to the fact that the court could invite people to intervene who are not a relevant party. Would he bear that in mind?
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Woolf
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 30 July 2014.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
755 c1630 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2014-08-01 15:44:16 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-07-30/14073047000127
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-07-30/14073047000127
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-07-30/14073047000127