Page 68 - tmp

Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] 1 AC
66
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)
Lord Steyn
“[The defendant] is prohibited from entering the Beswick area as defined, edged in red, on
the map attached- [The defendant] is prohibited from using or engaging in any abusive,
insulting, offensive, threatening or intimidating language or behaviour in any public place in
the City of Manchester. [The defendant] is prohibited from threatening or engaging in
violence or damage against any person or property within the City of Manchester. [The
defendant] is prohibited from encouraging any other person to engage in any of the acts
described in paragraphs a and 3 within the City of Manchester.”
The defendants appealed to the Crown Court.
Sir Rhys Davies QC, the Recorder of Manchester, sat with two magistrates. After a review of
the domestic and European case law he concluded that the proceedings under section 1(1) are
correctly to be classified as civil under domestic law and for the purposes of article 6. The
recorder then turned to the argument that, despite this classification, the criminal standard
should apply under section 1(1). He cited an observation in B v Chief Constable of Avon and
Somerset Constabulary [2.00:1) 1 WLR 340, 354, para 31, where Lord Bingham of Cornhill
CJ described, in the context of section z of the Act, which deals with orders against sex
offenders, the heightened civil standard of proof as “for all practical purposes . . .
indistinguishable from the criminal standard”. I the recorder stated:
“Having considered this authority and the arguments, we are satisfied that the standard to be
applied is the civil standard, but how are we to give effect to the guidance of the Lord Chief
Justice, that is to apply the civil standard with the strictness appropriate to the seriousness of
the matters to be proved and the implications of proving them. This is not an easy task and
we have brought to bear the judicial experience of all three of us which, it is has to be said, is
considerable, and we have concluded that in reality it is difficult to establish reliable
gradations between a heightened civil standard commensurate with [the] seriousness and
implications of proving the requirements, and the criminal standard. And we have concluded
chat for the purposes of this particular case, and we do not intend to lay down any form of
precedent, so I emphasise that for the purposes of this particular case, we will apply the
standard of being satisfied so that we are sure that the conditions are fulfilled before we
would consider the making of an order in the case of each [defendant] severally, because, of
course, each case must be considered separately.”
This is an important observation, by a highly experienced judge, to which I must in due
course return.
The defendants appealed to the Divisional Court. Lord Woolf CJ (with the agreement of
Rafferty J) ruled that the proceedings under section 1(1) were properly to be classified under
domestic law and under article 6 of the European Convention as civil proceedings and not
criminal proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal: R (McCann) v Croum Court at
Manchester [2.001] 1 WLR 3 58,
The defendants then appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The leading judgment
was given by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR; Kennedy and Dyson IJJ agreed: R
(McCann) 1/ Crown
114,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
66
[2003] I AC
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E)

Page 66 of 139