Page 66 - tmp

publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of
morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of
juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly
necessary in the opinion
111,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] 1 AC
64
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be
informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of
his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing
or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the
interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to
obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions
as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot
understand or speak the language used in court.”
While the guarantee of a fair trial under article 6(1) applies to both criminal and
civil proceedings article 6 prescribes in paragraphs 2 and 3 additional protections
applicable only to criminal proceedings. It is also well established in European
jurisprudence that “the contracting states have greater latitude when dealing with
civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with
criminal cases”: Dombo Beheer B v The Netherlands (1993) 18 EHRR 213, 2.2.9, Para
32
IV The C Mangham case
In late February 2000, the Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council received
a report by a housing trust about the behaviour of the defendant, then aged 16, who lived on
an estate within the borough. After detailed investigations the borough resolved to apply to
the magistrates’ court for an anti-social behaviour order. The complaint was supported by
witness statements containing some first-hand evidence of the defendant’s behaviour. The
application was, however, primarily based on hearsay evidence contained in records of
complaints received by the trust and in crime reports compiled by the police. The latter
contained information relating to a wide range of behaviour, from allegations of verbal abuse
to serious criminal activities including assault, burglary, criminal damage, and drug dealing
dating from April 1998 to December 2000. The allegations revealed a high level of serious
and persistent anti-social behaviour. The material from the records of the trust and the police
fell into three categories: (I) anonymous complaints where the source was never known; (ii)
complaints where the source was known but was not disclosed; (iii) computerised reports
made by police officers in the course of their duties, where the source of the complaint was
either unknown or not disclosed. The borough served its supporting material on the
defendant. In substance the material in its cumulative effect was, subject to any answer by the
defendant, logically probative of the statutory requirements under section r, The statements
and exhibits were not, however, accompanied by a hearsay notice under the Magistrates’
Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 (SI 1999/681).

Page 64 of 139