Page 349 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

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
349
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).
- Pursuant to an order by the judge a hearsay notice was served on the defendant. The
defendant challenged the validity of the hearsay notice on