Key Facts
- •Malcolm Huntley Potier applied for judicial review of a Southwark Crown Court decision regarding a Violent Offender Order (VOO).
- •A District Judge initially ordered VOO renewal, and the Crown Court Judge initially allowed cross-examination of witnesses via video link.
- •The Police successfully argued that the Crown Court lacked the power to order cross-examination of witnesses, leading to the Judge setting aside his prior direction.
- •The Claimant argued that the Crown Court had inherent power to order cross-examination, that the Judge lacked power to revoke the direction, and that the Judge acted unlawfully and unreasonably in refusing cross-examination.
- •The Claimant also argued that witness statements were not hearsay evidence.
Legal Principles
Power of the court to permit cross-examination on hearsay evidence in civil proceedings.
Civil Evidence Act 1995, section 3; CPR 33.4; Magistrates Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999, rule 4
Power of the Crown Court to make incidental or consequential orders on appeal.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 106(3)(b)
Power of the Crown Court to vary or revoke case management directions.
Crown Court Rules 1982, rule 5A(8) and (9)
Assessment of the weight to be given to hearsay evidence.
Civil Evidence Act 1995, section 4
Definition of hearsay evidence.
Civil Evidence Act 1995, section 1
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
The Court found the Claimant's arguments lacked merit. The Crown Court had the power to revoke the direction, acted lawfully and reasonably in doing so, and the statements were indeed hearsay evidence.