Ain't misbehavin'
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0247) 23 November 2002, 140-141(2)Publication details: 2002Subject(s):- MAINLY FOR STUDENTS
- CLINGHAM V KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA ROYAL LBC
- R V MANCHESTER CROWN COURT EX P MCCANN
- HORNAL V NEUBERGER PRODUCTS
- BOTROSS V HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM LBC
- STATUTORY NUISANCE
- MAGISTRATES' COURTS (HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS) RULES 1999
- ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
- PROPERTY AND LAND LAW-CASE LAW
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66285 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 120828-1001 |
Mainly for students article looks at two recent cases where the House of Lords had to decide whether applications for 'antisocial behaviour orders' should be treated as criminal or civil matters. Amongst the considerations taken into account were standard of proof and hearsay evidence. In "Clingham v Kensington and Chelsea Royal LBC" [2002] and "R(on the application of McCann) v Manchester Crown Court" [2002], the defendants in both cases wanted them held in criminal courts in order to take advantage of the stricter rules of evidence used there. The House of Lords ruled that an application for an ASBO was a civil proceeding, even though a prosecution for breaking such an order would be a criminal offence.