Communities blighted by serious anti-social behaviour have a right to the respite offered by hearsay evidence, says Robin Denford
I was concerned by Chris Cuddihee’s article (see NLJ, 22 June 2007, pp 880–81) in relation to the critical stance taken by the Administrative Court in R (on the application of Cleary) v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court [2006] EWHC 1869 (Admin), [2007] 1 All ER 270 on the use of hearsay evidence in applications for crack house closures. Although the author raised some interesting points about the difficulties in proving matters in closure order applications—and by implication applications for anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and other remedies—he failed to appreciate that the purpose of the legislation is not to punish but to protect. Hearsay evidence offers a rare respite to communities seriously affected by anti-social behaviour.
CRACK HOUSE CLOSURES
It is fully accepted that if the crack house closure is the first step towards proceedings for possession then not only does the magistrates’ court need to be satisfied that a closure order is necessary, but the county
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
