Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Crawley (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 October 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].


Road Safety Bill [HL]

While I do not doubt the good intentions behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend, I have to disappoint him. The Government consider that any individual exercising a right of audience before a magistrate should be required to demonstrate their competence to do so. I believe that the amendment is intended to allow a police officer to appear as prosecuting advocate in road traffic cases in order to speed up the case. However, the amendment is not clear about who would be eligible to exercise the right of audience, nor about what would constitute a minor road traffic case. If the case were more complicated than originally thought, the consequence of the amendment might be to introduce an unnecessary delay in the proceedings. Judges have discretion to allow police officers an audience before them. If a road traffic case is straightforward, I expect that a judge would chose to exercise that discretion. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c1281 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Crime prevention Advertising Bus lanes Buses Cameras Cycling Fraud Fees and charges Immobilisation of vehicles Fixed penalties Level crossings Exhaust emissions Large goods vehicles Driving instruction Helmets Medical examinations Motor vehicles Pollution control Motorcycles Motorway service areas Registration Young people Working hours Safety Roads Road traffic control Testing Road signs and markings Speed limits Road traffic offences Vehicle number plates Driving licences
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk