- Clause 21 - The clause is concerned with "fee remission applications" which can be made under various enactments - e.g. Courts Act 2003 s92 or Constitutional Reform Act 2005 s52 etc. When an application is made it will be possible for social security information or tax credit information or finances information to be disclosed to a "relevant person."
Enabling the making, and use, of films and other recordings of proceedings - Clause 22 - In England and Wales, the recording and broadcasting of the proceedings of a court or tribunal is prohibited by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. It is an offence to breach section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and it is a contempt of court to breach section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. By virtue of section 47 of Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is exempt from the prohibition in the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and proceedings are routinely recorded and broadcast.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice made a written ministerial statement on 6 September 2011 stating his intention to allow, in limited circumstances and with certain safeguards, the recording and broadcasting of certain aspects of court proceedings. Clause 22 provides the Lord Chancellor with powers to bring forward secondary legislation, with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice, to give effect to this.
In December 2009, Sir Peter North CBE QC was appointed by the then Secretary of State for Transport, to conduct an independent review of the law on drink driving and drug driving. North's Report of the Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law was published in June 2010 and made a variety of recommendations in regards to drink and drug driving, including that further consideration should be given to introducing a new specific offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a concentration of a controlled drug above a specified limit.
Following Sir Peter North CBE QC?s report the Transport Select Committee published, in December 2010, a report on drink and drug driving law . The Committee favoured the adoption of a "zero-tolerance" offence for illegal drugs which are known to impair driving.
and there is in D?s body a specified controlled drug.
D is guilty of an offence if the proportion of the drug in D?s blood or urine exceeds the specified limit for that drug.
It will be a defence for a person (?D?) charged with an offence under this section to show that - (a)the specified controlled drug had been prescribed or supplied to D for medical or dental purposes, (b) D took the drug in accordance with any directions given by the person by whom the drug was prescribed or supplied, and with any accompanying instructions (so far as consistent with any such directions) given by the manufacturer or distributor of the drug, and (c) D?s possession of the drug immediately before taking it was not unlawful under section 5(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (restriction of possession of controlled drugs) because of an exemption in regulations made under section 7 of that Act (authorisation of activities otherwise unlawful under foregoing provisions).
The defence will not be available to D if his actions were - (a)contrary to any advice, given by the person by whom the drug was prescribed or supplied, about the amount of time that should elapse between taking the drug and driving a motor vehicle, or (b)contrary to any accompanying instructions about that matter
(so far as consistent with any such advice) given by the manufacturer or distributor of the drug.
If evidence is adduced that is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the defence , the court must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
There is a further defence if D is able to prove that at the time D is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of D driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of the
specified controlled drug in D?s blood or urine remained likely to exceed the specified limit for that drug.
The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood, disregard any injury to D
See Department for Transport - Frequently Asked Questions - Drug Driving offence and drug screening devices
and any damage to the vehicle.
Addendum 19th May: A great deal more information about this Bill is available via Home Office - Crime and Courts Bill