Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary, R (on the application of) v Boorman

Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary, R (on the application of) v Boorman

Magistrates erred in law by excluding pre-period evidence solely because it was outside the six-month limitation; such evidence may be admissible if relevant to either limb of section 1. The application was properly dismissed on the facts, but the approach to evidence was mistaken.

Parties
Claimant: Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary; Defendant: Malcolm Leonard Boorman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal by Way of Case Stated
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; no order for rehearing; application for ASBO remains dismissed.
Legal Topics
Anti Social Behaviour Orders, Admissibility of Evidence, Limitation Periods, Standard of Proof, Reasons for Decisions
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Public Order Anti Social Behaviour Orders Admissibility of Evidence Limitation Periods Standard of Proof Reasons for Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary

Claimant

Malcolm Leonard Boorman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal by Way of Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of events outside the six-month limitation period is admissible in ASBO applications
  2. 2 Whether proof of objectively anti-social incidents within the limitation period is required
  3. 3 Whether magistrates must make findings of fact as to behaviour and its effect

Ratio Decidendi

Magistrates erred in law by excluding pre-period evidence solely because it was outside the six-month limitation; such evidence may be admissible if relevant to either limb of section 1. The application was properly dismissed on the facts, but the approach to evidence was mistaken.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; no order for rehearing; application for ASBO remains dismissed.

Orders

  • No order for costs; Legal Services Commission detailed assessment of costs permitted if required.