---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 86H: 86H: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause— ““Withdrawal of warrants After section 11 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) (non-appearance of accused: general provisions) insert— ““11A Non-appearance of accused: withdrawal of warrants (1) Where a magistrates’ court has proceeded in the absence of the accused and the court has imposed a fine following conviction, any warrant to enforce the fine or other financial penalty may be suspended or withdrawn and the matter returned to the court which convicted the offender. (2) The Secretary of State shall make regulations enabling— (a) a court, (b) Her Majesty’s Court service, or (c) any person employed to enforce a warrant against a convicted person, to suspend or withdraw the warrant and return the matter to the court which convicted the offender. (3) Regulations made under subsection (2) shall specify the steps to be taken in a case where following conviction it is discovered that the offender is a vulnerable person. (4) In subsection (3), ““vulnerable person”” means a person who could not reasonably be expected to act on his own behalf including, but not limited, to— (a) children under 18 years of age; (b) the elderly; (c) persons with a disability; (d) the seriously ill; (e) the recently bereaved; (f) single parents; (g) pregnant women; (h) unemployed persons; (i) persons who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.”””” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment inserts a new clause which would permit the withdrawal of warrants in a case where a magistrates’ court has proceeded in the absence of the accused and imposed a fine which is then enforced by means of a warrant. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a great interest in this matter. Noble Lords are looking round, but he cannot be here and therefore I am putting forward the amendment with his consent. Following our discussions in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the Z2K Trust had meetings with the Minister and they made some progress, but two major points are outstanding: first, while defaulters or their representatives can ask for the cases to be reheard by the magistrates’ court, the Government have said nothing about the fines officer or the bailiff referring back to the courts the case of vulnerable people who have been fined disproportionately in their absence. Noble Lords may remember that in Committee we made the point that if a person does not know that he has been summoned to court and does not know that a fine has been imposed it may be that the first he knows of these proceedings is when the bailiff knocks on the door. The purpose of the provisions in the amendment is that at that point the bailiff should be able to consider the position of the people with whom he is dealing, not simply to exercise his powers but to take a decision as to whether in all fairness and justice this matter will be referred back to the magistrates’ court. Secondly, many of your Lordships who have experience as magistrates know that in imposing a fine it is necessary to have regards to the means of the offender. The court in the absence of the defendant and without any notification to him may be unaware of the financial circumstances of the person concerned. Fines officers and bailiffs need to be under a positive duty to report back to the magistrates’ court cases of vulnerability or disproportionate fines in relation to means for the magistrates to reconsider. That is not terribly difficult. Generally speaking, bailiffs do not exercise their powers immediately but take time; they warn the person concerned and then go back. In the period before finally enforcing the order the bailiff has ample time to consider the person concerned and whether the case should be reported back. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, tells me that he found the expectations far too high in the Ministry of Justice about the capacity and knowledge of the relevant procedures among vulnerable people. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Mr Paul Nicholson of the trust pointed out to me, 7 million adults in the United Kingdom have a reading age of 11. For such issues there is no legal aid. Many people subject to such procedures are functionally handicapped when it comes to using legal processes. They are incapable of understanding the appeal and complaints system and will be unable to apply for a rehearing or to bring a complaint unless assisted by lawyers or specialist advisers. It is always open to a bailiff to discourage the person to whom he is speaking to take the matter further. Bailiffs are concerned with their commission. The amendments that we have tabled deal with those problems. I invite your Lordships’ attention to them. I have already referred to subsection (1), where the financial penalty may be suspended or withdrawn. Subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State should make regulations that will enable a bailiff to suspend or withdraw the warrant and return the matter to the court. Subsection (3) provides that: "““Regulations … shall specify the steps to be taken in a case where following conviction it is discovered that the offender is a vulnerable person””." Subsection (4) defines that vulnerable person as, "““children under 18 years of age … the elderly … persons with a disability … the seriously ill … the recently bereaved””," and so on. We have to have a system for the enforcement of fines which is humane and just. I beg to move the amendment in that context.