Criminal Behaviour Orders - Annex E

Model Hearsay Notice

DRAFT HEARSAY NOTICE

Delete unwanted sections as appropriate

HEARSAY NOTICE

Criminal Procedure Rules, Rule 50.6

1. The Applicant intends to rely on hearsay evidence in its application for a criminal behaviour order against the Defendant.
2. The hearsay evidence is contained in Witness Statements listed below and attached to this Notice. The Crown wishes to call this evidence as hearsay because:

   1. Witness Anthony produces the lead officer statement and has compiled his statement from police records and databases including details of previous convictions. It would not be practical to call every original contributor to those databases.
   2. Witness Barry produces a generic statement detailing community problems related to the defendant and associated anti-social behaviour in the area the defendant frequents. It would not be practical to call the originator of every complaint about such behaviour in this area.
   3. Witness Colin gives generic evidence of problems he has experienced with anti-social behaviour and crime in the area. He does not give direct evidence against the defendant. This evidence is produced under the authority of Chief Constable of Lancashire v Potter [2003] EWHC 2272 (Admin).
   4. Witness David is a local resident who gives evidence of anti-social behaviour by the defendant and his associates. The witness is in fear of reprisals if his appearance becomes known to the defendant.
   5. Witness Eric is a local resident who gives evidence of anti-social behaviour by the defendant and his associates. The witness is in fear of reprisals if his name becomes known to the defendant.
   6. Witness Fred gives evidence summarised from accounts of anonymous witnesses, providing details of complaints of anti-social behaviour in and around the area. Those witnesses are in fear of reprisals if their names or appearance become known to the defendant.
   7. Witness Gerald's evidence was accepted during the trial process l. To seek to further cross-examine him after conviction would be to go behind the conviction.

The Crown seeks to rely on the said evidence. This evidence is produced under the authority of Clingham v Kensington & Chelsea London Borough Council, R v Manchester Crown Court ex parte McCann & Others (2002) UKHL 39.