A magistrate considering an allegation of breach of bail, need not take account only of evidence which was strictly admissible. The Magistrates must take proper account of the evidential quality of what was presented, but it was not a breach of the defendant’s article 5 rights to hear the case on this basis. The standards applicable under article 6 need not be the same as those under this article. In the absence of a power to adjourn, where the magistrates considered there was a need for an adjournment, then they should not detain the defendant, since this indicated a failure to establish the allegation to the requisite degree.
Citations:
Times 07-Feb-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 805
Statutes:
Bail Act 1976, Human Rights Act 1998
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (DJ) v Mental Health Review Tribunal; Regina (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) Admn 11-Apr-2005
Each applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of the tribunal to authorise their release from detention under the 1983 Act, saying that the Tribunal had accepted evidence to a lower standard of proof.
Held: Neither the criminal standard . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence, Magistrates, Human Rights
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88497
