Page 301 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

rights” is inherent in the whole of the Convention. In these cases which your Lordships have
held are not criminal cases under the Convention and therefore do not attract the specific
protection given by article 6(3)(d) (though even in criminal cases the European Court has
recognised that “principles of fair trial also require that in appropriate cases the interests of
the defence are balanced against those of witnesses or victims called upon to testify”: see
Doorson v The Netherlands (1996) F.HRR 330, 358, para 70), and having regard to the
safeguards contained in section 4 of the 1995 Act, I consider that the striking of a fair balance
between the demands of the general interest of the community (the community in this case
being represented by weak and vulnerable people who claim that they are the victims of anti-
social behaviour which violates their rights) and the requirements of the protection of the
defendants’ rights requires the scales to come down in favour of the protection of the
community and of permitting the use of hearsay evidence in applications for anti-social
behaviour orders.
The standard of proof
- I am in agreement with the opinions of my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn and
Lord Hope of Craighead on this point and for the reasons which they give I would hold that
in proceedings under section 1 of the 1998 Act the standard of proof that ought to be applied
to allegations about the defendants’ past behaviour is the criminal standard.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
52,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 301
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Hutton
- For the reasons which I have given I would dismiss the appeals of A the McCann
defendants and would declare that the House had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the
defendant Clingham.
LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH
- My Lords, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friends Lord Steyn and Lord
Hope of Craighead and in agreement with the opinion
of my noble and learned friend Lord Hutton, in particular what he has said e in paragraph 113
of his opinion, I too would make the orders proposed.
LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE
- My Lords, I agree that for the reasons given in the opinions of my noble and learned
friends, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Hutton, the appeal in the McCann
case should be dismissed and in the Clingham case the House should make the order
proposed by Lord Steyn.
I, like my noble and learned friend Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, am in full agreement
with what Lord Hutton has said in paragraph 1.13 of his opinion.
Appeals in McCann case dismissed. Declaration that no jurisdiction to hear appeal in
Clingham case.
Solicitors: Peter Kandler & Co; Burton Copeland, Manchester; James Welch; Director of
Legal Services, Kensington, and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council; Winckworth
Sherwood; Treasury Solicitor.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
53,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page: 301
R. v DEAN BONESS AND OTHERS