Page 67 - tmp

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
112,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] 1 AC
65
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
the ground that it did not identify the makers of the hearsay statements. At a pre-trial review
the district judge ruled that on reflection, the 1999 Rules did not apply as the borough’s
supporting material involved no hearsay. The judge stated a case for the decision of the
Divisional Court which raised questions about the admissibility of hearsay evidence in the
proceedings under section 1(1) of the Act.
In the Divisional Court [2001] EWHC Admin 582 the view of the district judge as to what
amounted to hearsay evidence was rejected. In an unreported judgment Schiemann. I., J
observed that “If the policeman could only say that he had been told by such persons [who
had seen the behaviour in question] that Mr Clingham had behaved in an anti-social manner
that would be hearsay evidence of the behaviour”: para 15. Relying on the then unreported
decisions of the Divisional Court in R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester [2001] 1
WI. R 358 and B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340
the Divisional Court ruled that the proceedings were not criminal proceedings under domestic
law and did not involve a criminal charge under article 6. In these circumstances Schiemann
LJ concluded, in paras 19-20:
“The |hearsay] evidence can be admitted. If its weight is slight or it is not probative the judge
can say so. If he comes to an unlawful conclusion his decision can be appealed ... In the light
of this judgment, it is unnecessary for us to make any order. The matter will remain to be
dealt with by the magistrates’ court. That court will consider the evidence on the basis that it
is hearsay evidence and therefore subject to the criticisms which can be made of hearsay
evidence. The court will have to consider what weight to give to the evidence in the light of
those criticisms. I do not consider it appropriate for this court to express any views as to
weight.”
Poole [ took the same view, at paras 21 and 22.
The McCann cases
I gratefully refer to the account given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of
Craighead of the background to these cases. I can therefore deal with the matter briefly.
Between May and September 1999 die Chief Constable of Greater Manchester collected
evidence with a view to seeking anti-social behaviour orders against the three McCann
brothers who were then respectively aged 13, 15 and 16. They had been accused by various
members of the public of criminal activity and other anti-social behaviour including burglary,
theft, threatening and abusive behaviour, and criminal damage in the Beswick area of
Manchester. Complaints were duly lodged by the Chief Constable against them. The
applications sought various prohibitions against them including orders excluding them from
Beswick. The seriousness and persistence of their alleged anti-social behaviour is dearly
described by Lord Hope of Craighead, (he evidences against them consisted of oral evidence
of eye witnesses, as well as hearsay evidence consisting of a number of witness statements,
and police evidence of what had been reported to them by complainants.
A stipendiary magistrate found the requirements of section 1(1) satisfied and made anti-social
behaviour orders against all three McCann brothers on 15 December 1999. Each order
provided as follows:
113,

Page 65 of 139