London Local Authorities Bill [HL]
Tuesday 18 February 2003
500. Clause 35, Application of London Local Authorities
Act 2000. This clause could be described as doing a Hillingdon
belatedly. For their own reasons, the London Borough of Barnet
refrained voluntarily from joining in the promotion of the last
London Local Authorities Act, and this clause brings them into
the fold. Similarly, Kensington and Chelsea wanted to be omitted
from the benefits of one of the clauses in that Bill, enabling
enforcement of parking contraventions by remote camera. They have
clearly seen that benefits can be derived from that clause.
501. My Lords, finally, Clauses 36 to 41. I was not
intending to take you through these in detail. They are all miscellaneous
clauses which have been promoted in all of the recent London Local
Authorities Bills, but I am willing to answer any questions that
you have on them.
502. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Has anybody got
503. LORD ELTON: I have two small points. In Clause
34, if somebody gives a wrong name and address how is the summons
delivered? Since it is presumably delivered to the wrong name
504. MR BLACKWELL: It is not delivered at all, if
he gives an address which we cannot serve at. If he gives a false
name and address then it is served by post, and in many cases
505. LORD ELTON: Presumably to the wrong address?
So he will not get it.
506. MR BLACKWELL: Yes, and quite often in the wrong
name. What that means is that we are prosecuting people who do
not exist time and time again. With these provisions - at first
blush they seem rather odd - we do have repeat offenders coming
back time and time again. Once we know what their true name is
they can then be charged or summonsed with offences of failing
to give their correct name and address in the first instance.
507. MR LEWIS: At a later stage, because we do know
what their actual name and address is.
508. CHAIRMAN: You know exactly who these people
509. MR BLACKWELL: Eventually, yes.
510. LORD ELTON: In 39, Defence of due diligence,
subsection (2) there is a requirement to disclose the defence
before it is made. I thought it was rather standard practice to
disclose all defences before they were made. I am not a lawyer,
I can be wrong. If there is anything like that why is this particular
offence being singled out or mentioned?
511. MR BLACKWELL: Can I deal with your first point
first, there is not a requirement upon all defendants to disclose
their defence, it is a staged approach. In the Magistrates Court
after the prosecutor has given disclosure of any information that
he has that is detrimental to the prosecution case on pleading
not guilty the defendant has the option of disclosing his defence
in the Magistrates Court. In the Crown Court it is compulsory.
512. In relation to the second question I will need
to consider it.
513. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That brings today's proceedings
to an end. If I am right then all we have to deal with tomorrow
are the two contentious clauses on dog walking
514. MR LEWIS: That is not so contentious it just
happens to be a clause that is dealt with by Wandsworth.
515. CHAIRMAN: and the powers of parks
constables. What was the other one?
516. MR LEWIS: Dog walking was the other one, it
is not a contentious clause it is just that the witnesses were
not available today.
517. CHAIRMAN: Right.
518. LORD ELTON: Will we be receiving the views of
the Metropolitan Police on the powers of parks constables?
519. MR LEWIS: It was not my intention to call anyone
from the Metropolitan Police. There will be a representatives
from the Parks Police Force in Wandsworth, who are not part of
the Met, he is a parks constable employed by Wandsworth and he
will probably be able to answer questions on relations with the