James William Brown v Director of Public Prosecutions
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Irwin,Mr Justice Stuart-Smith |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 798 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4503/2018 |
| Date | 02 April 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 798 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Irwin
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith
Case No: CO/4503/2018
Neil Corre (instructed by BB Law Ltd) for the Appellant
James Boyd (instructed by the Appeals and Review Unit, The Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 28 March 2019
Approved Judgment
This case turns on the meaning of the term “issuing”. The Appellant was convicted on 17 August 2018 by the North Staffordshire Magistrates of an offence of speeding contrary to a Local Traffic Order and Sections 84 and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. He has admitted the facts alleged. The defence advanced, and the basis of the appeal by way of case stated, is that the written charge in the case was not “issued” within the six months period specified by Section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 [“the 1980 Act”].
The Appellant contends that proceedings cannot be “issued” unless and until the relevant document (the written charge) “is in the public domain at least to the extent that it has left the relevant prosecutor's office”. The Respondent argues that the only way in which to make sense of the wording of [section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 [“the 2003 Act”]] is to interpret the word “issuing” as meaning what happens when the written charge is produced by the prosecutor in a form that is ready for service.
The Case
The Magistrates stated a case, formulating the proposed questions of law as follows:
“(i) Were we right to decide that a written charge is issued to the defendant when the relevant prosecutor determines to issue it?
(ii) Were we right to decide that the written charge and Single Justice Procedure Notice were issued to the defendant by the relevant prosecutor on 21 April 2018?”
The facts were stated as follows:
“ Summary of the Nature and History of the Proceedings
1. That on 19 th November 2017, James William Brown born 13/11/1992 drove a motor vehicle, namely an Audi A5 index number DG15 0TV on a road, namely A51 Weston, subject of a local traffic order, namely Staffordshire County Council (60mph speed limit) (Aston by Stone to Rugeley Road, A51 Sandon to Weston) (Dual Carriageway) Order 2001 at a speed exceeding 60mph. Contrary to the above local traffic order and sections 48 and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
2. At 15:48 hours on 19 th November 2017, Kevin Sharpe, trained operator of laser measuring devices and Concept DVD system, formed the opinion that a vehicle was travelling in excess of the speed limit. He targeted an Audi A5 S LINE BLK ED and TDI vehicle registration VRM DG15 0TV using the device to which produced a record in the form of a DVD. The speed of the vehicle is shown as 86 mph. Kevin Sharpe produces a witness statement dated 21 st April 2018 which exhibits at 09221 A and B still frames taken from the DVD sowing ( sic) the vehicle and the speed measurement which appears in the datablock.
3. Morag Motum, Administrative Officer within the Safety Camera Office confirms that following detection of the above offence details of the vehicle were transmitted to the Police National Computer and details of the registered keepers name and address were automatically received back. This data then auto-populated a combined Notice of Intended prosecution and a request under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, for details of the driver at the time of the offence.
4. A Notice of Intended Prosecution/Section 172 request was sent to James Brown of Marl Sprink, Rushton Spencer, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 0RX. The date shown on the request is 22 nd November 2017 which was the date it was sent by Royal Mail first class post.
5. James Brown completed a s 172 statement, confirming at Section A that he was the driver of the vehicle on 19 th November 2017 at 15:48 hours on A51 Weston, Staffs. His statement is dated 4 th December 2017.
6. Morag Motum confirms receipt of James Brown's signed admission. She was unable to offer a Conditional Offer of a fixed penalty due to the fact that the recorded speed was too high. She confirms that a single Justice Procedure Notice was issued to James William Brown. The evidence of Morag Motum is contained in her witness statement dated 21 st April 2018 which exhibits the Notice of Intended Prosecution/s 172 Request and s 172 statement from James Brown.
7. On 21 st April 2018 a written charge was produced, as worded above with the URN 21WT/51869/18 by Prosecutor Gareth Morgan, Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police.
8. The posting date of the Single Justice Procedure Notice and written charge is 23 rd May 2018.”
Two issues were taken at trial, but the single issue pursued on this appeal is that arising from Section 127 of the 1980 Act, as amended.
The Legislation and Rules
Section 127 of the 1980 Act, in its material part reads:
“ 127 – Limitation of time.
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment … a magistrates' court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.”
Prior to the 2003 Act, summary criminal proceedings were initiated by the laying of a complaint or information before magistrates, who then issued the relevant proceedings. This two-stage process came to be regarded as wasteful and expensive, at least in the context of driving offences. By Section 29 of the 2003 Act Parliament altered the procedure. The relevant part of the statute reads:
“29 New method of instituting proceedings
(1) A [relevant prosecutor] may institute criminal proceedings against a person by issuing a document (a “written charge”) which charges the person with an offence.
(2) Where a relevant prosecutor issues a written charge, it must at the same time issue –
…
(b) a single justice procedure notice.
…
(2B) A single justice procedure notice is a document which requires the person on whom it is served to serve on the designated officer for a magistrates' court specified in the notice a written notification stating—
(a) whether the person desires to plead guilty or not guilty, and
(b) if the person desires to plead guilty, whether or not the person desires to be tried in accordance with section 16A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
…
(3A) Where a relevant prosecutor issues a written charge and a single justice procedure notice, the written charge and notice must be served on the person concerned, and a copy of both must be served on the designated officer specified in the notice.
(3B) If a single justice procedure notice is served on a person, the relevant prosecutor must—
(a) at the same time serve on the person such documents as may be prescribed by Criminal Procedure Rules, and
(b) serve copies of those documents on the designated officer specified in the notice.
(3C) The written notification required by a single justice procedure notice may be served by the legal representative of the person charged on the person's behalf.
…
(5) In this section [“ relevant prosecutor”] means—
(a) a police force or a person authorised by a police force to institute criminal proceedings,
…
(5A) An order under subsection (5)(h) specifying a person for the purposes of this section must also specify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Owain McFarlane
...of proceedings. It is unnecessary in this case to consider precisely what amounts to the issue of a written charge (compare Brown v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] EWHC 798 Admin) as, on any view, the charges attached to the email dated 16 November 2018 were issued well within 6 mon......
-
Young v Director of Public Prosecutions
...the two documents were issued. 9 After the original case was stated, the Divisional Court in Brown v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] EWHC 798 (Admin), [2019] 1 WLR 4194 rejected the same submissions made by Mr Bell before the Magistrates in this case, holding that the “issuing” of t......