Jones v Birmingham City Council

The Law Reports Weekly Law Reports The Times Law Reports Cited authorities (63) Cited in (14) Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtSupreme Court
JudgeReed,Hodge,Lloyd-Jones,Sales,Stephens,Rose,Richards
Judgment Date19 July 2023
Neutral Citation[2023] UKSC 27
Year2023
Supreme Court Birmingham City Council v Jones [2023] UKSC 27

2023 Jan 30, 31; July 19

Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose, Lord Richards JJSC

Injunction - Gang injunctions - Standard of proof - Statutory powers to grant injunctions in restraint of gang-related violence, gang-related drug-dealing activity and anti-social behaviour - Whether criminal or civil standard of proof applicable - Whether statutory schemes compatible with Convention right to fair trial - Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6(1) - Policing and Crime Act 2009 (c 26), s 34 - Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c 12), s 1

The claimant local authority obtained injunctions against the defendant and 17 others under section 34 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009F1 and section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014F2. Section 34(2) of the 2009 Act and section 1(2) of the 2014 Act respectively provided that the court could only grant an injunction if it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had engaged in or had encouraged or assisted gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity, or that the respondent had engaged or threatened to engage in anti-social behaviour. The defendant applied for a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998F3 that those provisions were incompatible with his right to a fair hearing under article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in so far as they prescribed the civil rather than the criminal standard of proof. The judge refused the application, a decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The defendant appealed. On the appeal it was common ground that the proceedings were civil proceedings for the purposes of article 6.

On the defendant’s appeal—

Held, dismissing the appeal, that article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms did not require the application of the criminal standard of proof to be satisfied in respect of (a) proof that a person had enaged in or had encouraged or assisted gang-related violence or gang-related drug-dealing activity within section 34(2) of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 or (b) proof that a person had engaged or threatened to engage in anti-social behaviour within section 1(2) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; that, rather, since article 6(1) of the Convention did not make express reference to the burden or standard of proof in civil proceedings and the European Court of Human Rights had said little in respect of the standard of proof in civil proceedings, the question under article 6(1) was whether the proceedings considered as a whole were fair; that under Part 4 of the 2009 Act and Part 1 of the 2014 Act Parliament had devised statutory schemes incorporating procedural safeguards which conformed with the requirements of a fair hearing under article 6(1) of the Convention; that, therefore, on an application for an injunction under either section 34 of the 2009 Act or section 1 of the 2014 Act the standard of proof applicable to the relevant issues was the civil standard of proof, which was the balance of probabilities; and that, accordingly, the claimant’s application for a declaration of incompatibility could not succeed (post, paras 31, 38, 52, 56–66).

R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester [2003] 1 AC 787, HL(E) explained.

Per curiam. There is only one civil standard of proof at common law and that is proof on the balance of probabilities. Nevertheless, the inherent improbability of an event having occurred will, as a matter of common sense, be a relevant factor when deciding whether it did in fact occur. As a result, proof of an improbable event may require more cogent evidence than might otherwise be required. However, the seriousness of an allegation, or of the consequences which would follow for a defendant if an allegation is proved, does not necessarily affect the likelihood of its being true. As a result, there cannot be a general rule that the seriousness of an allegation or of the consequences of upholding an allegation justifies a requirement of more cogent evidence where the civil standard is applied. There is no such thing as a heightened civil standard (post, paras 51, 60).

Dicta of Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in In re D [2008] 1 WLR 1499, HL(NI), paras 28, 43, 47 not applied.

Dicta of Richards LJ in R (N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2006] QB 468, CA, para 62 disapproved.

Decision of the Court of Appeal [2018] EWCA Civ 1189; [2019] QB 521; [2018] 3 WLR 1695 affirmed.

The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Lord Lloyd-Jones JSC:

B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof), In re [2008] UKHL 35; [2009] AC 11; [2008] 3 WLR 1; [2008] 4 All ER 1, HL(E)

B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340; [2001] 1 All ER 562, DC

Bikas v Germany (Application No 76607/13) (unreported) 25 January 2018, ECtHR

Birmingham City Council v James [2013] EWCA Civ 552; [2014] 1 WLR 23, CA

Birmingham City Council v Shafi [2008] EWCA Civ 1186; [2009] 1 WLR 1961; [2009] PTSR 503; [2009] 3 All ER 127, CA

Chief Constable of Lancashire v Wilson [2015] EWHC 2763 (QB)

Constanda v M 1997 SC 217, Ct of Sess

D, In re [2008] UKHL 33; [2008] 1 WLR 1499; [2008] 4 All ER 992, HL(NI)

Dombo Beheer BV v The Netherlands (Application No 14448/88) (1993) 18 EHRR 213, ECtHR

García Ruiz v Spain (Application No 30544/96) (1999) 31 EHRR 22, ECtHR (GC)

Gough v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary [2002] EWCA Civ 351; [2002] QB 1213; [2002] 3 WLR 289; [2002] 2 All ER 985, CA

H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof), In re [1996] AC 563; [1996] 2 WLR 8; [1996] 1 All ER 1, HL(E)

Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; [2011] 2 AC 104; [2010] 3 WLR 1441; [2011] PTSR 61; [2011] 1 All ER 285, SC(E)

Mantovanelli v France (Application No 21497/93) (1997) 24 EHRR 370, ECtHR

Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234; [1966] 3 All ER 77, HL(E)

R (AB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] UKSC 28; [2022] AC 487; [2021] 3 WLR 494; [2021] 4 All ER 777, SC(E)

R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26; [2008] AC 153; [2007] 3 WLR 33; [2007] 3 All ER 685, HL(E)

R (Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2008] UKHL 15; [2008] AC 1312; [2008] 2 WLR 781; [2008] 3 All ER 193, HL(E)

R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 56; [2023] AC 559; [2022] 2 WLR 133; [2022] 2 All ER 1, SC(E)

R (Hammond) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 69; [2006] 1 AC 603; [2005] 3 WLR 1229; [2006] 1 All ER 219, HL(E)

R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester [2001] 1 WLR 358, DC; [2001] EWCA Civ 281; [2001] 1 WLR 1084; [2001] 4 All ER 264, CA; [2002] UKHL 39; [2003] 1 AC 787; [2002] 3 WLR 1313; [2002] 4 All ER 593; [2003] 1 Cr App R 27, HL(E)

R (N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2005] EWCA Civ 1605; [2006] QB 468; [2006] 2 WLR 850; [2006] 4 All ER 194, CA

R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 45; [2005] 2 AC 738; [2005] 3 WLR 152; [2006] 1 All ER 39, HL(E)

R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15; [2007] 1 AC 100; [2006] 2 WLR 719; [2006] 2 All ER 487, HL(E)

R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26; [2004] 2 AC 323; [2004] 3 WLR 23; [2004] 3 All ER 785, HL(E)

Regner v Czech Republic (Application No 35289/11) (2017) 66 EHRR 9, ECtHR (GC)

Ringvold v Norway (Application No 34964/97) Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003-II, p 117

SA-Capital Oy v Finland (Application No 5556/10) (unreported) 14 February 2019, ECtHR

Şahin v Turkey (Application No 13279/05) (2011) 54 EHRR 20, ECtHR (GC)

Saliba v Malta (Application No 24221/13) (unreported) 29 November 2016, ECtHR

Secretary of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46; [2008] AC 440; [2007] 3 WLR 681; [2008] 1 All ER 657, HL(E)

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47; [2003] 1 AC 153; [2001] 3 WLR 877; [2002] 1 All ER 122, HL(E)

Smith v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41; [2014] AC 52; [2013] 3 WLR 69; [2013] 4 All ER 794, SC(E)

Taxquet v Belgium (Application No 926/05) (2010) 54 EHRR 26, ECtHR (GC)

Tiemann v France and Germany (Application Nos 47457/99 and 47458/99) (unreported) 27 April 2000, ECtHR

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v Spain (Application Nos 10588/83, 10589/83 and 10590/83) (1988) 11 EHRR 360, ECtHR

Chief Constable of Cleveland Police v Haggas [2009] EWHC 3231 (Admin); [2011] 1 WLR 2512; [2010] 3 All ER 506

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v Calder [2015] EWHC B11 (QB)

Chief Constable of Kent Police v Carter [2022] EWHC 1972 (Admin), DC

Comr of Police of the Metropolis v Ebanks [2012] EWHC 2368 (Admin); 176 JP 751, DC

City of London Corpn v Bovis Construction Ltd (No 2) [1992] 3 All ER 697, CA

Horton v Sadler [2006] UKHL 27; [2007] 1 AC 307; [2006] 2 WLR 1346; [2006] 3 All ER 1177, HL(E)

Jacobs v London County Council [1950] AC 361; [1950] 1 All ER 737, HL(E)

Nottingham City Council v Zain (A Minor) [2001] EWCA Civ 1248; [2002] 1 WLR 607, CA

R v A (No 2) [2001] UKHL 25; [2002] 1 AC 45; [2001] 2 WLR 1546; [2001] 3 All ER 1; [2001] 2 Cr App R 21, HL(E)

R v Briggs-Price [2009] UKHL 19; [2009] AC 1026; [2009] 2 WLR 1101; [2009] 4 All ER 594, HL(E)

R v H [2004] UKHL 3; [2004] 2 AC 134; [2004] 2 WLR 335; [2004] 1 All ER 1269; [2004] 2 Cr App R 10, HL(E)

R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8; [2017] AC 387; [2016] 2 WLR 681; [2016] 2 All ER 1; [2016] 1 Cr App R 31, SC(E)

R (Maughan) v Oxfordshire Senior Coroner [2020] UKSC 46; [2021] AC 454; [2020] 3 WLR 1298; [2021] 3 All ER 1, SC(E)

R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61; [2014] AC 1115; [2013] 3 WLR 1020; [2014] 1 All ER 369, SC(E & NI)

R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26; [2022] AC 223; [2021] 3 WLR 428; [2022] 3 All ER 95, SC(E)

R (Youngsam) v Parole Board...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
14 cases
  • The Duke of Sussex v MGN Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 15 December 2023
    ...where a finding is appropriate, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, however serious the allegations: Birmingham City Council v Jones [2023] UKSC 27; [2023] 3 WLR 343. I have already noted that, with few exceptions, there is no evidence at all that any of the named PIs the......
  • Baljit Singh Bhandal v HM Revenue & Customs
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 18 June 2025
    ...alleged and thus to prove it.” 176 The law in this respect was more recently summarised by Lord Lloyd-Jones JSC in Birmingham City Council v Jones [2023] UKSC 27 [2024] AC 168. After reviewing the relevant case law, Lord Lloyd-Jones summarised the position in the following terms, at [51]: “......
  • Farol Holdings Ltd v Clydesdale Bank Plc
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 19 March 2024
    ...fact occur. As a result, proof of an improbable event may require more cogent evidence than might otherwise be required”: Birmingham City Council v Jones [2023] UKSC 27; [2024] AC 168, at 250 Far from there being cogent evidence, there is no evidence at all that the legal nature of the CNHs......
  • Swindon Borough Council v Mr Daniel Abrook
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 March 2024
    ...had engaged in anti-social behaviour. That last finding has been substantially qualified by the Supreme Court in Birmingham City Council v Jones [2023] UKSC 27; [2023] 3 WLR 343 (see paragraph 52 of the judgment of Lord Lloyd-Jones, with which the other members of the court 58 We were also ......
    • Get Started for Free
Add as a preferred source on Google