HL Deb 21 July 1977 vol 386 cc433-4

26 Page 9, line 8, at end insert— (1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply unless the judgment or order in question was given or made in proceedings brought under any provisions of rules of court applicable only in circumstances where the person claiming possession of any premises alleges that the premises in question are occupied solely by a person or persons (not being a tenant or tenants holding over after the termination of the tenancy) who entered into or remained in occupation of the premises without the licence or consent of the person claiming possession or any predecessor in title of his".

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. It replaces a subsection which your Lordships' House removed. Clause 10 makes it a criminal offence to resist or obstruct a court officer executing a court judgment or order for the possession of premises. The Law Commission recommended the offence on the grounds that there is an increasing tendency for those occupying property without licence seriously to obstruct court officials seeking to enforce court orders. The Commission pointed out that it is mainly in relation to the enforcement of orders for possession under the summary procedure that the problems of enforcement have arisen on a fairly widespread scale.

The summary procedure under Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Order 26 of the County Court Rules were introduced in 1970 to provide a quick remedy especially for cases involving squatters. Because that is where the greatest problem lay, the Commission propose that the offence should be limited to the obstruction of court officers executing orders under the summary procedure.

When the clause was considered by your Lordships' House, some concern was expressed about this restriction and an Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, to remove it was carried at Report stage. The subsection was restored in another place in the Standing Committee. The Government do not seek to reintroduce it on the ground that an important principle is at stake—clearly, all court orders should be obeyed—but in considering proposals to extend the criminal law, we must have regard to the practicalities of the situation and in particular to the likely burden which the clause would impose upon the police. This point, I know, has been fully argued at previous stages of the Bill and your Lordships will not want me to rehearse again the Government's argument on this point. I hope your Lordships' House will show its regard for the many other difficult and important problems with which the police have to grapple by now agreeing with the other place in this Amendment.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.