Newman v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis

Applications for football banning orders are civil proceedings. No criminal disclosure regime or general disclosure regime under the Civil Procedure Rules applies in the magistrates’ court. The governing requirement is fairness.

Fairness requires disclosure of material known to undermine the police case or assist the respondent’s case. It does not ordinarily require wholesale disclosure of intelligence sources or complete CCTV footage. Further disclosure may be required where the respondent raises a specific issue, such as mistaken identification or misleading context. Hearsay may remain admissible despite procedural non-compliance, although the court must assess its weight in all the circumstances.

The Commissioner applied to the magistrates’ court for football banning orders under section 14 B of the Football Spectators Act 1989. The evidence included a police intelligence profile based on undisclosed source material and a compilation disc of selected CCTV clips drawn from fuller footage.

The magistrates admitted both forms of evidence, concluding that fairness could be protected through cross-examination, the respondent’s evidence and appropriate assessment of weight. They stated three questions for the opinion of the High Court concerning disclosure, admissibility and fairness. The central issue was whether the evidence could fairly be admitted without disclosure of the underlying intelligence reports and complete CCTV footage.

1. Appeal dismissed. All three questions stated by the magistrates were answered in the affirmative. The magistrates had made no error of law and had reached a decision reasonably open to them.
2. Proceedings under section 14 B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 are civil proceedings. The rules governing disclosure of unused material in criminal proceedings do not apply. The Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to magistrates’ courts, and the statutory hearsay provisions do not establish a general disclosure regime.
3. The correct approach was to ask whether evidence which was admissible in principle could fairly be admitted without disclosure of underlying material. Fairness required disclosure of material known to undermine the Commissioner’s case or assist the respondent’s case. It did not require wholesale disclosure of the intelligence material underlying the police profile, particularly where the respondent had advanced no specific case about the incidents and the Commissioner maintained that the material contained nothing adverse.
4. The presence of officers able to give first-hand evidence, the opportunity for cross-examination and the respondent’s ability to give evidence were relevant considerations. The ultimate weight of the profile evidence remained for the magistrates.
5. Selected CCTV clips could be admitted without disclosure of all source footage where no specific issue had been raised about identification or misleading context. If a respondent specifically requested the underlying footage because the context of a clip was disputed or identification was challenged, fairness would almost certainly require an opportunity to view the full video before reliance on the clip.
6. Hearsay was a technically distinct issue. Even non-compliance with the applicable hearsay rules did not necessarily prevent admission, but the court had to consider the statutory safeguards and all relevant circumstances when assessing weight. The guidance in Gough v Chief Constable of the Derbyshire Constabulary and McCann v Crown Court at Manchester was relevant.
7. The court strongly discouraged interlocutory challenges to procedural rulings by magistrates’ courts, but declined to refuse answers once the case had been brought before it.

• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court: admitted the police profile statement and compilation CCTV disc and stated three questions for the opinion of the High Court.
• High Court (Administrative Court): answered all three questions in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal.