Jones v Birmingham City Council and another

19 July 2023

[2023] UKSC 27

Supreme Court

The court decided that when the government tries to stop gang violence with court orders, they don't have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (like in a criminal trial). They just need to show it's more likely than not that the gang member is doing bad things. The law already has rules to make sure it's fair.

Key Facts

•Appeal concerns the standard of proof (criminal vs. civil) in injunction proceedings under sections 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to prevent gang violence and drug dealing.
•The 2009 and 2014 Acts explicitly state that the civil standard (balance of probabilities) applies.
•Appellant argued that Article 6(1) ECHR requires the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) due to the significant impact on the respondent's rights.
•Appellant sought a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
•Case involved injunction proceedings against Mr. Jerome Jones for alleged gang-related activity in Birmingham.
•The Court of Appeal upheld the use of the civil standard of proof.

Legal Principles

Article 6(1) ECHR guarantees a fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations.

European Convention on Human Rights

The standard of proof in civil proceedings is primarily a matter for national law, and the Strasbourg court assesses overall fairness.

Strasbourg case law (Taxquet v Belgium, Şahin v Turkey, García Ruiz v Spain, Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands, Saliba v Malta)

There is only one civil standard of proof: balance of probabilities. While the inherent improbability of an event affects the required evidence strength, the seriousness of an allegation doesn't change the standard.

UK Common Law (In re H (Minors), Rehman, R(N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, Re B (Children))

Sections 34(2) of the 2009 Act and 1(2) of the 2014 Act explicitly mandate the civil standard of proof for the first condition of obtaining injunctions.

Policing and Crime Act 2009, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester is not authority for the proposition that Article 6(1) ECHR requires the criminal standard of proof in civil proceedings for anti-social behaviour orders.

R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester [2003] 1 AC 787

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

Article 6(1) ECHR does not require the criminal standard of proof in these circumstances. Parliament's express statutory provision for the civil standard is compatible with Article 6(1). The Acts incorporate sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure fairness.

Jones v Birmingham City Council and another

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cathy Eastburn

R (on the application of Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and others

Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court (Consequential Matters)

Bryn Duval Richards v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor

Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court