COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 20 May 1985)

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. Your Lordships will doubtless recall that when this Bill was last before us my noble friend Lord Elton moved amendments which enabled the Court of Appeal to make an award of costs from central funds in favour of an appellant successful in an appeal against sentence. The court also has powers under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to substitute a verdict of guilty of another offence, or to order the recording of a different conclusion on the effect of a special verdict, or to substitute a finding of insanity or unfitness to plead.
It is appropriate, where any of these orders are made on the hearing of an appeal, to enable the Court of Appeal also to consider whether a defendant's costs order should be made in favour of the appellant. The amendment therefore introduces this change. I beg to move.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, I shall assume, if I may, that the word "eases" three lines from the end of that amendment will be altered in due course to "cases".

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, certainly. I am sure that that is a drafting error. I shall ensure that it is correct in the final print.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, yes. I wanted only to demonstrate that I had read the matter with some care.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, with the same object as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to show that I had at least read something and wanted to deal with it before your Lordships, I wonder whether the noble Lord can at this juncture explain something to me that I am sure I ought to know. This copy of the Bill, which is headed, To be substituted for Bill previously delivered", has a note at the top. The note says: The words marked by a black line in the margin were inserted by the Lords to avoid questions of privilege". I see that this indeed necessitated a reissue of the Bill because these words were omitted from the Bill when it was brought from the Lords on 4th March. However, the only black margin that I can find is at the bottom of page 28. It has nothing to do with the Royal privilege but the amendment reads at the end of subsection (8) under Part IV "supplemental": Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge". I am only inquisitive to know why this House inserted these words and what the words "to avoid questions of privilege" mean. If I may, I shall go on talking for a moment in order to enable the noble Lord to consult with whomever he wants. Alternatively, if he feels that this matter should be referred to later in the Bill after an opportunity has been given to him to consider it, then with the greatest of pleasure I shall resume my seat. However, for the moment I shall remain standing.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his patience. As I understand it, the fact is that it is normal procedure for Bills which start in this House to have the privilege amendment put in in this House. In this particular case the fact is that we shall come on to it with a later amendment, Amendment No. 27. I think I am right in saying, though I was not here at that particular moment, that the privilege amendment was not included and it had to come back for a second Third Reading, (if that makes sense). I hope that that elucidates the position for the noble Lord.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, I recollect that. It put us all slightly to shame when we were putting it right.