Regina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McCann and others: QBD 22 Nov 2000

An application for an anti-social behaviour order against an individual was a civil, not a criminal proceeding. The standard of evidence required was on the balance of probability; the civil standard. Such proceedings were not subject to the additional protection of the human rights convention. Necessarily, the circumstances from which protection was sought were ones where proof will not be easily found. There is no overriding test within domestic law for deciding whether proceedings are civil or criminal. The procedure here was one generally used for civil proceedings, and no punishment was properly involved at this stage. At most there would be a restriction on activities of those subject to the order. Lord Woolf said: ‘The significance of whether the proceedings are civil or criminal arises because of the difficulty that exists in relation to the proof of the sort of conduct against which section 1 is designed to provide protection. Understandably, in a locality those who are subject to anti-social behaviour are chary about giving evidence in criminal proceedings. It is in particular because of those difficulties that, after a consultation process, the legislation which is contained in Part 1 of the 1998 Act was passed. The object of making the proof of conduct which is anti-social more easy to prove would be defeated if in fact the proceedings were criminal. Then the normal rules of evidence which apply to criminal proceedings would have to be complied with and furthermore the proceedings would be subject to the additional protection provided by Article 6 of the European Convention in relation to criminal proceedings.’
Lord Woolf
Gazette 11-Jan-2001, Times 22-Dec-2000, [2002] 3 WLR 1313, [2000] EWHC 565 (QB)
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1, European Convention on Human Rights 5.1
CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court ex parte Rogers (Legal Professional Privilege) Admn 2-Feb-1999
The police had sought disclosure from the applicant’s solicitors of records of the time at which the applicant arrived at the solicitors’ premises on a particular date and like documents.
Held: Such records are not privileged because they did . .
Times 15-Feb-99, Gazette 10-Mar-99, [1999] EWHC Admin 94, [1999] 1 WLR 832

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
Times 09-Mar-01, [2001] 1 WLR 1084, [2001] EWCA Civ 281
CitedRegina (Smith) v Parole Board (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2003
The applicant having been released on licence had his licence revoked. The decision had been made at a hearing which considered evidence on paper only, which he said was unfair.
Held: The case law had maintained a proper distinction between . .
Times 02-Sep-03, Gazette 11-Sep-03, [2003] EWCA Civ 1269, [2003] 1 WLR 2548, Gazette 02-Oct-03, [2004] 1 WLR 421
At First InstanceClingham (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 . .
Times 21-Oct-02, [2002] UKHL 39, [2002] 3 WLR 1313, [2003] 1 AC 787, [2002] 4 All ER 593, [2003] BLGR 57, [2002] 13 BHRC 482, (2002) 166 JPN 850, (2002) 166 JP 657, [2003] HLR 17, [2002] UKHRR 1286, [2003] 1 Cr App R 27

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.87261