Jonathan Manning : Keep It Civil, Keep The Handcuffs

Chambers Chatter banner for Paul Cohen, Elisabeth Mason and the Sulu arbitration file

Today’s Chambers Chatter stays at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, where associate member barrister Wendy Miller operates after representing both Cummins and Cepac against Lee Thompson. Wendy can leave the employment bundle alone for a moment because we are heading into the part of civil law where “civil” can mean gang allegations, firearms, drugs, exclusion zones, social-media restrictions, music videos and, if necessary, a power of arrest.

The barrister is Jonathan Manning, called in 1989 and now a long-established specialist in local government, housing, public law and anti-social behaviour. His chambers profile describes a practice spanning organised crime groups, street gangs, drug dealing, firearms, child sexual exploitation, serious mental-health issues and some of the heaviest civil injunction work the courts have to offer. Then, in January 2023, 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square advertised one of Manning’s Supreme Court battles with the headline “Keep it Civil!”

You have to admire the balls. Beneath that chirpy little exclamation mark sat a dispute about whether allegations of gang-related violence and drug dealing could be established on the balance of probabilities before courts imposed serious restrictions on a person’s movement, association and expression. Civil law, apparently. Just mind the handcuffs.

Jonathan Manning And The Biggest Gang Injunction Show In Town

The story begins years earlier in Birmingham. In 2016, Birmingham City Council brought proceedings against Jerome Jones and 17 other defendants said to be connected with rival gangs. Interim injunctions followed, and in 2017 the case produced what Manning’s chambers describes as the largest gang-injunction claim ever brought. Manning led for Birmingham City Council.

The final orders were not some limp little “please behave yourself” note slipped under the door. According to 4-5’s own account, restrictions obtained across the defendants included association, entering specified areas, social-media use, mobile phones and participation in certain music videos. The order against Jones itself prohibited violence or intimidation, restricted him from entering a substantial part of central Birmingham except for specified hospital-related reasons, prevented contact with named people, prohibited possession of controlled or psychoactive substances without prescription and restricted participation in certain gang-related music videos. A power of arrest applied to key parts of the order.

There is nothing inherently improper about any of that. Parliament created the regime, courts issued the orders and Birmingham City Council was entitled to seek them. But let us not piss on everyone’s shoes and call it drizzle. These were serious restrictions backed by serious machinery, and the legal question became whether the underlying allegations needed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, as in criminal proceedings, or merely on the civil standard: more likely than not.

Suddenly Keep it Civil! starts sounding less like a seminar title and more like something painted on the side of a riot van.

Balance Of Probabilities, Meet Power Of Arrest

For anybody fortunate enough not to spend their mornings marinating in evidential standards, the distinction matters. The criminal standard asks whether guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The civil standard asks whether something is more likely than not. That does not mean civil judges throw darts at a board, and serious allegations may require especially cogent evidence, but the legal threshold remains the balance of probabilities.

Now put that beside gang-related drug dealing, restrictions on where somebody can walk, who they can contact, what they can possess, what music videos they can join and a power of arrest attached to parts of the order. That is where the legal plumbing becomes interesting, because the whole thing has the texture of criminal justice but arrives wearing a civil-law name badge and carrying a clipboard.

No conviction is required before the injunction itself is imposed, and the order does not create a criminal conviction merely by existing. Instead, somebody can find themselves subject to court-imposed controls on movement and association, backed by contempt powers if they breach them. Very civil. Almost aggressively fucking civil.

4-5 Adds The Exclamation Mark

By January 2023, the argument had reached the Supreme Court. 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square published its preview under the title “Keep it Civil! Jonathan Manning and Charlotte Crocombe to argue in the Supreme Court that gang injunctions should retain the civil standard of proof.”

There it is. Not buried in a judgment, not invented by TCAP and not scribbled on a pub napkin after three pints. That is the chambers headline.

The article explained that Manning and Charlotte Crocombe, instructed by Birmingham City Council, would argue that neither Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights nor the earlier McCann authority required the criminal standard for gang injunctions under the 2009 Act or anti-social behaviour injunctions under the 2014 Act. The competing argument was obvious: if the allegations concern criminal or quasi-criminal behaviour and the resulting orders substantially interfere with movement, association or expression, perhaps fairness should demand the criminal standard.

Manning’s side said no. The Supreme Court agreed. That is not a criticism of his advocacy. It is simply the result, and it leaves us with one of those gloriously odd corners of English law where very serious allegations can lead to very serious restrictions while the evidential threshold remains firmly civil.

The Supreme Court Says Civil Means Civil

In July 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lord Lloyd-Jones, with the other six justices agreeing, held that Parliament had deliberately created statutory schemes using the civil standard of proof and that those schemes complied with Article 6 fair-hearing requirements.

The Court therefore confirmed that these allegations are determined on the balance of probabilities. Manning won.

If TCAP were writing a legal directory entry, that would probably be the end of the story. Experienced advocate. Important Supreme Court victory. Significant clarification of injunction law. Everyone shakes hands, somebody sends the PDF to marketing and a clerk quietly updates the profile.

Unfortunately for respectable society, TCAP is not a legal directory. What interests us is the institutional weirdness. You can allege conduct involving gangs, firearms or drugs, seek an order capable of restricting movement and association, attach a power of arrest and ultimately pursue contempt if the order is breached, yet the threshold question remains civil. Somewhere in Westminster, a draftsman apparently looked at that magnificent beast and decided it belonged in the same broad evidential family as boundary disputes and unpaid invoices.

Law is full of this sort of bollocks. Labels first, reality later.

The Order Does Not Need A Criminal Record To Ruin Your Afternoon

The Supreme Court stressed that gang injunctions are preventative and protective, not criminal punishment. Breach is civil contempt rather than a criminal offence, and the statutory schemes contain safeguards. That distinction is legally important.

It is also the sort of distinction that probably feels very elegant when you are not the poor sod standing inside the red line on the map.

The Jones order covered a substantial part of central Birmingham, including areas around Handsworth, Winson Green, Lozells and Newtown. He could enter the Birmingham City Hospital site in specified circumstances, including appointments and emergencies, but the geographical restriction was otherwise significant. He was also prohibited from contacting ten named people, including through social media.

Then there was the music-video provision. Yes, music videos. The injunction prohibited participation in videos connected with specified gangs where the material might promote, support or assist gang-related violence or drug dealing. That provision survived the legal attack too, meaning British civil procedure had somehow progressed from leaking gutters and disputed hedges to judicially supervised drill-video casting.

Nobody can say the common law lacks ambition.

Jonathan Manning Knows This Machinery Very Well

This was not some one-off detour in Manning’s career. His current 4-5 profile says he has worked in anti-social behaviour since the early 1990s and has particular experience obtaining civil orders involving the most serious forms of alleged behaviour.

The list is not exactly neighbourhood-bin-dispute territory. Organised crime groups, urban street gangs, drug dealing, firearms, child sexual exploitation, street racers, unauthorised traveller encampments and cases involving serious mental-health issues all appear across the practice. He has also dealt with Equality Act questions, capacity issues, spent convictions, committal orders, vulnerable witnesses and human-rights arguments.

That is a serious practice. It is also the sort of CV where the words civil injunction have been doing heavy bastard overtime.

Manning’s professional world sits precisely where society wants to restrain behaviour without necessarily waiting for criminal prosecution to do all the lifting. The courts provide the machinery, local authorities provide the application, counsel provides the argument and eventually somebody draws a red line on a map.

The Great Civil-Law Costume Party

There is a strange genius to these regimes. Criminal law arrives wearing boots while civil law arrives carrying folders, yet sometimes they end up standing in remarkably similar rooms.

One system talks about conviction while the other talks about findings. One talks about sentence, while the other talks about injunction terms and contempt. One says beyond reasonable doubt, while the other says balance of probabilities. Meanwhile, the person on the receiving end may be wondering whether they can walk down a particular road without being arrested.

This is not a legal argument that the two systems are identical. They are not. It is simply an observation about how bloody surreal the distinction can look from street level.

The law adores classification because classification makes hard things tidy. Gang violence? Civil. Drug dealing? Civil. Power of arrest? Still civil. Possible imprisonment for contempt after breach? Calm down, sir. Different drawer.

Then The Neurodiverse Client Appears

And here is where the story becomes much more interesting than a cheap “Manning likes injunctions” caricature. In another case, Manning and Charlotte Crocombe acted against an application for a gang injunction. This time they represented a neurodiverse client.

They won.

According to the published account, the court found that an injunction was not necessary because the respondent had not engaged in gang-related violence or drug-dealing activity for approximately three years and the criminal law had already provided an effective response. More importantly, the court concluded that imposing the injunction would place the client at a particular disadvantage because of his disability and that doing so would be indirectly discriminatory and disproportionate.

Now that is interesting. The same barrister who helped Birmingham City Council preserve the civil standard in the Supreme Court also successfully argued that the machinery should not be switched on against a neurodiverse defendant where the circumstances did not justify it.

That makes Manning harder to flatten into a villain. Annoying, I know, but facts are bastards like that.

Disability Suddenly Matters When Counsel Says It Does

The neurodiversity case demonstrates something worth keeping. Civil injunctions are not supposed to be conveyor belts, and necessity, proportionality, disability and equality law actually matter.

The court did not simply say, “Well, gang injunctions exist, so have one.” It looked at the individual, considered the passage of time, weighed the effectiveness of the criminal law, considered disability and then said no.

That is exactly what a rights-sensitive system is supposed to do.

The uncomfortable part is that this kind of careful individualised analysis often depends on somebody actually putting the case properly. Have experienced counsel and disability becomes a structured Equality Act argument involving proportionality and disadvantage. Turn up alone, frightened, overloaded, confused or simply shit at litigation and the same disability can become an irritating paragraph near the back of a witness statement.

The statute may be neutral. Access to the machinery never is.

Wendy Miller And The Interesting Building

And inevitably we circle back to barrister Wendy Miller. Miller operates as an associate member of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square after representing both Cummins and Cepac against Lee Thompson in separate Employment Tribunal proceedings.

She has nothing to do with Jonathan Manning’s gang-injunction practice. That is not the point.

The point is that TCAP wandered into this chambers through Wendy’s door and keeps finding rooms full of increasingly fascinating institutional equipment. Alexander Bunzl gave us “How to clamp down on vexatious litigants.” Jonathan Manning gives us “Keep it Civil!” You could not design the sequence better if you hired a scriptwriter.

One colleague discusses controlling prolific litigants. Another helps establish that serious gang-related allegations can remain subject to the civil standard of proof. Meanwhile, somewhere down the corridor sits the barrister who introduced TCAP to the building in the first place.

The website is becoming less a professional directory and more an advent calendar for procedural restraint.

Keep It Civil, Keep Your Passport Handy

The phrase Keep it Civil! is what makes the whole episode sing. It is chirpy, friendly and almost cute. You expect a cartoon gavel and a cup of coffee.

Instead, open the lid and you find gang allegations, exclusion zones, powers of arrest, social-media restrictions and years of appellate litigation about Article 6. That is barristers’ chambers marketing at its purest: take the heavy machinery of state power and give it a jaunty headline.

No need to say “serious restrictions on liberty imposed following allegations assessed on the balance of probabilities”. Bit gloomy.

Keep it Civil! Much better. Stick an exclamation mark on the bastard and send it to LinkedIn.

Civil Does Not Mean Trivial

To be fair to the Supreme Court, nobody said these orders were trivial. The judgment examined the statutory safeguards in detail and recognised the significant effects injunctions can have on private life, family life, association and expression.

Parliament, however, had expressly selected the civil standard. That choice was deliberate, and the Court held that Article 6 did not require the criminal standard to replace it.

That is the law.

TCAP’s interest is not in criticising Manning for successfully arguing his client’s case. It is in the comforting linguistic bullshit that can surround coercive civil powers. Calling something civil tells you which legal box it lives in. It does not tell you whether the contents can wreck your week, restrict your movement or land you in contempt proceedings if you ignore the order.

The label is procedural. The consequences are real as hell.

The Barrister With Both Sets Of Keys

Manning’s record ultimately makes him more interesting because he has operated both sides of the gate. For Birmingham, he helped defend the statutory framework all the way to the Supreme Court. For the neurodiverse respondent, he helped keep an injunction out.

That is advocacy. Barristers act on instructions, the client changes, the argument changes, and the professional skill lies in making the best lawful case available.

Still, there is something beautifully British about a legal system where the same barrister can spend one case arguing why the civil evidential standard is enough for restrictive gang injunctions and another persuading a judge that imposing one would discriminate against a disabled person.

One day you help establish why the lock can lawfully exist. Another day you explain why this particular door should stay open. Then chambers updates the website and puts another neat little paragraph under the profile.

Balance Of Probabilities, Maximum Bureaucracy

What the Jones litigation ultimately demonstrates is how far civil law has travelled from the popular image of two neighbours screaming about a fence. Modern civil injunctions can regulate behaviour that overlaps substantially with the criminal sphere. They can restrict movement, association, communication and public expression, while breach can lead to contempt proceedings and powers of arrest can be attached.

All of it may be justified. Sometimes society plainly needs preventative tools where criminal prosecution is difficult, slow or inadequate.

But the power deserves proportionate scrutiny precisely because it is powerful. When the state wants to restrict somebody’s liberty based on alleged criminal behaviour, nobody should become hypnotised by the word civil.

That label tells you which drawer the file goes in. It does not stop the machinery inside from being brutal.

4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Keeps Delivering

Jonathan Manning is plainly experienced in this field. His chambers profile is not bluffing. The Jones litigation travelled through the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and Manning represented Birmingham City Council when the final appellate answer arrived. His side won.

That deserves professional credit.

But Chambers Chatter is not here to polish the plaque. We are interested in what the plaque actually says.

And this one says something remarkable. A barrister from the same chambers where Wendy Miller operates helped defend a statutory regime under which allegations of gang-related violence and drug dealing can be proved on the civil standard before serious injunctions are imposed.

The chambers promotional headline was Keep it Civil!

Years later, it still reads like satire written by somebody who did not realise they were writing satire.

That is not Jonathan Manning’s fault.

It is simply bloody convenient.

Keep It Civil

Jonathan Manning has spent decades in some of the toughest corners of anti-social behaviour and public-law litigation. He helped Birmingham secure injunctions in what his chambers describes as the largest gang-injunction case ever brought, then helped defend the civil standard of proof in the Supreme Court. Later, he and Charlotte Crocombe successfully resisted an injunction against a neurodiverse client because it was unnecessary, disproportionate and indirectly discriminatory.

That is not hypocrisy. It is a barrister doing different jobs for different clients inside the same legal system.

The hypocrisy, if there is any, lies in pretending the words we use make the machinery gentler than it is. Civil is such a lovely word. Tea, contracts, neighbours and reasonable people discussing matters through solicitors. Then somebody unfolds the Birmingham map, marks the prohibited area in red and checks whether the power of arrest has been attached.

Keep it civil, indeed.

Just keep your hands where everyone can see them.

Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project