Supreme Court to issue ruling next week on gang injunctions and standard of proof

The Supreme Court will next week (19 July) hand down its ruling in a landmark appeal over gang injunctions and the right to a fair trial.

The issue in Jones v Birmingham City Council and another is whether Part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, which introduced a new remedy by way of injunction for the purpose of preventing gang-related violence, is incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees an individual’s right to a fair trial.

The background to the case is that in 2016, HHJ McKenna granted an interim injunction preventing the appellant, Mr Jones, from entering a large part of central Birmingham, save for exceptional circumstances, on account of his alleged involvement in gang-related activities. Mr Jones was one of 17 individuals to be made the subject of an injunction.

This order was appealed to the High Court as being incompatible with Article 6 ECHR.

Mr Jones argued that although the injunction was obtained in civil proceedings, Article 6 required that the allegations on which the injunctions were based (i.e. that Mr Jones had been involved in gang-related violence or drug dealing) should be proved to the criminal standard (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) rather than the civil standard (i.e. on the balance of probabilities) as the legislation specifies.

However, the High Court found there was no incompatibility. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In Jones v Birmingham City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1189  the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Sir Brian Leveson, the then President of the Queen’s Bench Division, said: “Parliament was entitled to address the very real social harm which gangs and other anti-social behaviour have been inflicting on society in the way in which this legislation seeks to do. Built in to each legislative scheme are safeguards intended to address the impact on individuals.

“In my judgment, the legislation does not trigger the bringing of a criminal charge for the purposes of Article 6 of the ECHR and neither is the requirement that the court address the issues on the balance of probability a breach of Article 6.”

Mr Jones appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that Article 6 ECHR requires that the allegations be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case was heard by a seven-justice Supreme Court panel comprising Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose and Lord Richards on 30 – 31 January 2023.