---

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

The court can, of course, make an interim drinking banning order if it thinks it necessary to take immediate action to stop the problems that are being caused by the criminal or disorderly conduct of an individual while under the influence of alcohol before the application for a drinking banning order can be fully determined. To be able to take action as speedily as possible is the primary reason for approaching matters through the interim drinking banning order. Subsequently, a full application would be made and considered. From memory, I think that such an application has to be made within four weeks, but I may need to be corrected on that. Amendment No. 30 seeks to ensure that where an application for an interim order is made without notice a copy of the order is served personally on the individual by an officer of that court. That seems an entirely reasonable amendment, on the face of it. Court procedures for applying for or making an interim order would in any event be set out in magistrates’ courts rules, while those for the county court would be set out in civil procedure rules. There is thus no need to specify in the Bill how those orders are to be served. They are already covered in court rules, which will specify precisely how a copy of the order is to be served. For that reason, we resist the amendment.