0370 270 6000

R v Marylebone Magistrates Court

1 February 2001
The issues

Human Rights – Civil Proceedings – Unfair Trial – Hearsay Evidence

The facts

The Local Authority had sought an antisocial behaviour Order against the Claimant. They had wished to submit material indicating that a large number of people who they could not or would not identify had complained about the Appellant. The District Judge had considered that evidence hearsay and adjourned the hearing to await the outcome of the Appeal to the Divisional Court.

The decision

There was nothing in the Human Rights Act 1998 nor in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which led to the automatic exclusion of hearsay evidence and civil proceedings. The admission of hearsay evidence without the possibility of cross- examination did not automatically result in an unfair trial under Article 6.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up