---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 70A:"After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—" ““ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES: PROCEDURE (1)   Designated members of a relevant police authority shall, for the purposes of this section, have the powers and rights of audience of a Crown Prosecutor in relation to the prosecution of— (a)   the offences listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Specified Proceedings) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/904); (b)   specified offences that cease to be specified when a magistrates’ court begins to receive evidence in those proceedings where the defendant does not enter a plea. (2)   A designated member of a relevant police authority shall not have rights of audience when an offence ceases to be specified where the defendant enters a not guilty plea and the case proceeds to trial. (3)   A member of a relevant police authority shall be designated for the purposes of this section if that member is a recognised designated court presentation officer employed for that purpose.”” The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend the Minister did not like the wording of my amendment regarding police rights of audience in certain traffic offences. This amendment seeks to address those imperfections. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Specified Proceedings) Order 1999, (SI 1999/904) specifies certain low level road traffic offences. The 1985 Act places the duty on the CPS, under statute, to take over the conduct in all criminal proceedings other than specified proceedings. Currently, therefore, the police have conduct of all specified proceedings unless these proceedings become de-specified. An offence will only become de-specified when the court begins to hear the evidence presented. This happens in the following cases. First, where the court starts to hear the evidence in the event of the defendant pleading not guilty and the case proceeds to trial; and secondly, where the court starts to hear the evidence in the event of the defendant not entering a plea of any description. In these cases the court hears the evidence by way of statements read out either by the CPS lawyers or CPS staff members—who are not lawyers but designated case workers. I am sure that my noble friend would like to learn that the police have recruited a central resource pool of trained and experienced dedicated court presentation officers and it is hoped that these people will be given the same rights of audience as provided to the CPS non-legal staff under Section 7A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The cases where this would take place would be those non-contested, lower level road traffic offences as listed in the Specified Proceedings Order. Safety camera offences and those subject to fixed penalty notices are a couple of areas of concern, where people might go scot-free if this change were to be rejected. It is therefore necessary for these court presenters to acquire those rights, as the police are seeking the use of more court space to optimise prosecution ability. The CPS, in turn, is questioning its role in the prosecution of these cases and the police are only able to present cases where there have been confirmed guilty pleas. In these cases the police present cases by means of reading out the statement of facts and not the statements themselves, which would require the CPS. The CPS would benefit from assistance in matters of non-contested cases with no plea entered at all in that as many as possible would be proved in absence at the first hearing by using these specialised dedicated court presenters. To summarise, this would free the CPS for more serious roads policing cases in the knowledge that there are people, duly qualified by appropriate training, who can work effectively in minor cases. I beg to move.