The occupier of property appealed against a closure order. It was said that it had been used for the sale of drugs. The question was whether the civil standard of proof applied, as it was used in anti-social behaviour orders, when an application was made for a closure order. The appellant contended that the effect of a closure order was less serious than an order against an individual.
Held: The statute was silent as to the standard of proof. However Hansard revealed a statement by the appropriate minister stating that the intended standard was the civil one. The direct effect on an individual was less from a closure order and the civil standard was appropriate.
Judges:
Maurice Kay LJ, Tugendhat J
Citations:
Times 14-Apr-2006, [2006] EWHC 1106 (Admin), [2006] 3 WLR 171, [2006] ACD 67, (2006) 170 JP 523, [2007] QB 79
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Clingham (formerly C (a minor)) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Regina v Crown Court at Manchester Ex parte McCann and Others HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants had been made subject of anti-social behaviour orders. They challenged the basis upon which the orders had been made.
Held: The orders had no identifiable consequences which would make the process a criminal one. Civil standards . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240394
