Page 78 - tmp

the opportunity which civil proceedings provide for the use of hearsay evidence is a valuable
safeguard.
It greatly increases the prospect of persuading those who are likely to be exposed to further
anti-social behaviour to co-operate with the authorities in protecting them from such conduct.
The facts
The facts of the Clingham case have been described by my noble and learned friend Lord
Steyn, and I gracefully adopt his account. As he has pointed out, it is a striking feature of that
case that two of the statements relied on were anonymous and two of them were by persons
who were in fear of reprisals if they were to be called on to give evidence. I should like to ^
deal in my speech with the facts in the case of McCann, which has similar characteristics.
The defendants in the case of McCann are three brothers who all live
in the Ardwick area of Manchester. They were aged 16, 15 and 1.3 011 1:7 May 2000 when
anti-social behaviour orders were made against them by Judge Rhys Davies QC, the Recorder
of Manchester, sitting in the Crown Court with lay magistrates.
The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester had been collecting evidence against the
defendants for a period of about five months between May and September 1999. They had
been accused by various members of the public in the Beswick area of Manchester of
threatening and abusive behaviour, causing criminal damage, theft, and burglary. On 28
September 1999 the Chief Constable consulted with Manchester City Council, the council for
the relevant local government area, as required by section 1 of
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I hey agreed that an application for antisocial behaviour
orders should be made. 1 the Chief Constable laid complaints against the defendants at
Manchester Magistrates’ Court on 22 October 1999, and summonses were served on them on
1 November
124,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
[2003] I AC R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Ct (HL(E))
Lord Hope of Craighead
19951. On 15 December 1999 Mr Alan Berg, a stipendiary magistrate, made anti-social
behaviour orders against each of them, which they then appealed. Their appeal was heard in
the form of a rehearing by the Crown Court.
The stipendiary magistrate held that the defendants had acted in a manner which caused or
was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same
household as themselves by offensive, abusive, insulting, threatening and intimidating words
and behaviour as well as violent behaviour towards people in the local authority area of
Manchester. He also held that an anti-social behaviour order was necessary to protect persons
in that area and he made prohibitions against each of them. Dismissing their appeals, the
Crown Court made identical orders to those made by the magistrate which prohibited each of
them: (x) from entering the Beswick area as defined, edged in red on the map attached; (2)
from using or engaging in any abusive, insulting, offensive, threatening or intimidating
language or behaviour in any public place in the City of Manchester; (3) from threatening or
engaging in violence or damage against any person or property within the City of
Manchester; (4) from encouraging any other person to engage in any of the acts described in
paragraphs 2 and 3 within the City of Manchester.
- The evidence against the defendants consisted in part of direct
evidence and in part of hearsay evidence. Four members of the public gave evidence of
various acts of anti-social behaviour. One said that he had been abused on one occasion by
two of the defendants and that he had been threatened and assaulted on another occasion by
the third. The second said that he had been abused on one occasion by one of the defendants,
who on the same occasion also assaulted an unknown youth. the third was an employee of a

Page 76 of 139