Page 77 - tmp

My Lords, in a democratic society the protection of public order lies at the heart of good
government. This fundamental principle has a prominent place in the European Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Among the grounds on
which a public
authority may interfere with the rights described in articles 8 to T 1: of the Convention, are
public safety, the protection of public order and the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others. It is only in article 10(1) that one finds an express declaration that the exercise of
freedoms carries with its duties and responsibilities. But it is a theme which runs right
through the Convention. Respect for the rights of others is the price that we must all pay for
the rights and freedoms that it guarantees.
On the whole we live in a law-abiding community. Most people respect the rights of others,
most of the time. People usually refrain from acts which are likely to cause injury to others or
to their property. On the occasions when they do not, the sanctions provided by the criminal
law are available. But it is a sad fact that there are some individuals for whom respect for the
law and for the rights of others has no meaning. Taken one by one, their criminal or sub-
criminal acts may seem to be, and indeed often are, relatively trivial. But, taken together, the
frequency and scale of their destructive and offensive conduct presents a quite different
picture. So does the aggression and intimidation with which their acts are perpetrated. 1 he
social disruption which their behaviour creates is unacceptable. So too is the apparent
inability of the criminal law to restrain their activities. This provides the background to the
enactment of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 with which your Lordships are
concerned in these appeals.
The main question which they raise is the familiar one of classification. If proceedings under
section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are to be classified as criminal proceedings for
the purposes of
123,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Simon Cordell Skeleton Argument.pdf
[2003] AC
75
R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL (£)
Lord Hope of Craighead
article 6 of the Convention, all the normal rules of evidence which apply to a criminal
prosecution in domestic law must be applied to them. This is of crucial importance to the use
which may be made in these proceedings of hearsay evidence. In domestic terms, hearsay
evidence under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 would be inadmissible in these proceedings if
they are too, he classified as criminal. In Convention terms, the persons against whom anti-
social behaviour orders were sought would be entitled to the protection g of article 6(3){d) if
it applies to them. Under that paragraph every person charged with a criminal offence has the
right to examine or have examined the witnesses against him. But much of the benefit which
the legislation was designed to achieve would be lost if this is how these proceedings have to
be classified. It would greatly disturb the balance which section 1 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 seeks to strike between the interests of the individual and those of society.
The reason for this is not hard to find. So often those who are directly affected by this
conduct lack both the inclination and the resources to do anything about it. Above all, they
have been intimidated and they are afraid. They know that they risk becoming targets for
further anti-social behaviour if they turn to the law for their protection. It is unrealistic to
expect them to seek the protection of an injunction under the civil law. Reports to the police
about criminal conduct are likely to result in their having to give evidence. In this situation

Page 75 of 139