I come back briefly to the point about discretion. Of course it is right that the court will have discretion as to whether to grant an injunction. In the case of an application made without notice, the clause is perfectly clear; it gives wide discretion to the court as to what to do. My concern is that if the court decides to make an order, where is its discretion if you remove the provision in Section 49 to restrict the publicity that is given to it? It is that element of discretion that I think concerns the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness. There are two discretions here. One is certainly there, very properly, in the way that the whole of Part 1 is drafted as to whether orders are to be made. It is the particular point about the discretion as to whether publicity should be given that is of concern.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hope of Craighead
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 20 November 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
749 c987 Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-12-20 05:14:42 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-20/13112089000188
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-20/13112089000188
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-20/13112089000188