Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 74: 74: Clause 10 , page 7, line 34, at end insert ““and he has deliberately absented himself from the proceedings at which the order or (as the case may be) variation is made”” The noble Lord said: In moving AmendmentNo. 74, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 75. We are concerned by the proposition that a person can have an SCPO imposed on them in their absence. Clause 10 makes provision for ensuring that the subject of an order knows that there will be a court hearing. But it makes clear that an order will not necessarily be made in the presence of the subject of the order. For an SCPO to be made, one of the following tests has to be satisfied: that the person has been represented in the proceedings, either by himself or by somebody else; that a notice of the hearing has been served on him personally; or that a notice of the hearing has been sent by recorded delivery post to his last known address. It is therefore perfectly possible to have a situation where someone is made subject to such an order with no knowledge of the hearing—for example, if they had moved, were away or if the notice had gone astray in the post. I fully accept that if a person deliberately absents themselves from a hearing, the court should be empowered to proceed. But why is it right to provide specifically for proceedings to continue in the respondent’s absence where that absence is not intentional? It seems at variance with the stancetaken in Clause 9 where the court must give third parties the right to make representations in specified circumstances. Presumably that means that if they do not turn up at a hearing, the court would have to delay its decision until the third party was able to attend and make his or her representation. I would be very grateful if the Minister could consider further the implications of Clause 10 and make provision for the order to be made in the person’s presence unless he has deliberately absented himself. I beg to move.