Violent Crime Reduction Bill

: The consequence is clearly that interim banning orders are there to ensure that action can be taken against a criminal offender with some speed, so that measures begin to have a bite and effect. As the noble Viscount knows, an interim drinking banning order can be made in absentia and the magistrates’ court—for that matter, the county court—could therefore, subject to some provisos about service, consider the complaint in the absence of the defendant. As I said, the same general position applies in the county court. However, we think it very unlikely in practice that a court would want to make a final drinking banning order in the absence of the defendant except in exceptional cases. We believe that an adjournment and the powers to issue warrants to secure attendance are much more likely in those circumstances. That probably answers the noble Lord’s point, if that position were ever to be reached. The idea of an interim order is to ensure that action can be taken speedily. As I said earlier, the maximum duration of an interim drinking banning order is to be limited to four weeks and, although it can be renewed, in practice we would not want it to be renewed. We would far prefer a proper drinking banning order to be sought and made, because we think that that would properly give effect to what the police or the local authority are seeking to achieve under the drinking banning order. The permission for an application for an interim order may be given only when the court or the clerk is satisfied that the application needs to be made without the individual concerned receiving notice and without his presence. They will have to be satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances. There are sufficient safeguards within that to ensure that this is a proper process and that the objectives that we seek to fulfil through the legislation are properly met. A drinking banning order will obviously take effect when the subject is made aware of its terms, so it makes sense to serve the drinking banning order personally and, in many cases, this can be done while the subject is in court. The need to serve drinking banning orders personally can be set out in guidance and, of course, reinforced through court rules where necessary. I understand the noble Lord’s objection to this. We take a different view and we are determined that the application of this part of the Act, as it will be, is effective and can be used in a way that provides some flexibility but also ensures that the authorities are fully aware of the need to conform with the strictures that are set down on how drinking banning orders may be applied for.