---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 101D: 101D: Clause 101, page 76, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ““(3) If it appears to the court— (a) that the person to whom the main application relates (““P””) is a qualifying offender, (b) that, if the court were determining that application, it would be likely to make a violent offender order in respect of P, and (c) that it is desirable to act before that application is determined, with a view to securing the immediate protection of the public from the risk of serious violent harm caused by P, the court may make an interim violent offender order in respect of P that contains such prohibitions, restrictions or conditions as it considers necessary for the purpose of protecting the public from the risk of such harm.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101E and 102. They relate to changes in the way in which interim violent offender orders can be used. Currently, the court can grant an interim order if it is satisfied that the person is a qualifying offender and it considers it appropriate. Amendment No. 102 requires that interim orders must be made only on the basis of prima facie evidence. The effect of the amendment would be that the court could not make an interim order unless satisfied that there was clear evidence to support the application for the main violent offender order. We are content with this proposal and have provided for this in Amendment No. 101D. Amendment No. 101E seeks to ensure that interim orders are not made without hearing the individual in respect of whom the application has been made or at least giving that individual the opportunity to be heard. Interim violent offender orders are intended to provide short-term and immediate protection to the public while a decision on the main application is being made. It is my understanding that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, seeks through his amendment to ensure that interim violent offender orders are not made without a clear and justifiable case for such immediate management of an individual considered to pose a risk of serious violent harm. The noble Earl can rest assured that I completely support the intention of that amendment. We feel that it is crucial that the court is able to provide for the immediate risk management of a risky individual to protect the public from serious violent harm, even if the outcome of the main application has not yet been determined. However, we would never expect the court to make an interim order in respect of an individual without evidence that would support the main order and this is what government Amendment No. 101D seeks to achieve. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will support the government amendment in lieu of his own. The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, seeks to ensure that interim violent offender orders are not made without hearing the individual in respect of whom the application has been made, or at least giving the individual the opportunity to be heard. Again, I can make it absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box that we entirely support the overall intention of that amendment as I, like the noble and learned Lord, wish for interim violent offender orders to be used fairly and appropriately at all times. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the individual in respect of whom the order is being applied should have the opportunity to be heard. I must insist, though, that individuals are given only one opportunity to be heard, and if for whatever reason that opportunity is not taken, the court may still make an interim order. This is absolutely necessary for the purposes of providing immediate protection to the public from the risk of serious violence. My commitment today is to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading which requires that an interim order can be made in the absence of the individual in respect of whom the order has been applied for only if the court is satisfied that the individual has been notified of the court hearing date. This would mean that the individual could attend the hearing or make representations on the day if he or she chose so to do. However, as I have already explained, interim orders have a specific purpose to provide the public with immediate protection from the risk of serious violent harm. I am therefore unwilling to require that the court cannot make an interim order without hearing the individual in respect of whom the application has been made, as this could introduce significant delays to the proceedings. Such delays could ultimately leave the public and particular individuals exposed to a risk of serious violence. We have moved to meet the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who unfortunately is not here, but I understand that he is satisfied with our approach. We have also moved to meet the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I beg to move.