Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Serious Crime Bill [HL].


Serious Crime Bill [HL]

We support these amendments. The amendments that we consider to be most important apply to Clauses 17 and 18. I invite the noble Baroness now to look at those clauses. The effect of using ““significantly”” is that Clause 17(5) states: "““The court must not entertain an application””," to vary an order, "““unless it considers that … the person is significantly adversely affected by the order””." Similarly, in Clause 18, relating to discharge, the same words appear— "““significantly adversely affected by the order””." We want to know why variation and discharge by someone else who is not the subject of the order has to be subject to the qualification that they must be ““significantly adversely affected””. What is meant by that? It is an entirely vague expression and I would be grateful for enlightenment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c795-6 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Crime prevention Crime Charities Companies Crown Prosecution Service Firearms Environment Exemptions Insolvency Pollution Property Mental health Poaching Registration Serious Fraud Office Robbery Serious Organised Crime Agency Angling High Court Northern Ireland Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office Serious crime prevention orders
Legislation
Serious Crime Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk