In the case of the most summary offences, there is a strict time-limit that prosecutors need to comply with if they wish to take the matter to court.
Summary offences are those that the Magistrates' Court is empowered to deal with until completion. All non-imprisonable motoring offences are summary offences, as are less serious public order offences. A few summary offences are imprisonable, such as driving whilst disqualified and driving whilst unfit (or over the prescribed limit) through drink or drugs.
In my Commencement of Proceedings in the Magistrates' Court article I discussed the different ways an allegation can be referred to the court for prosecution.
Section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states that, generally speaking, the court can only try a complaint or hear an information within 6 months of the time the offence was committed or the matter of the complaint arose. If the clock ticks beyond 6 months and an information hasn't been laid, the offence cannot be prosecuted.
By way of a simple example, say a driver had been identified in relation to a speeding offence. If the police failed to inform the court within 6 months, then no further action could be taken in relation to that offence.
A recent appeal to the Divisional Court (Luton Borough Council v Altavon Luton Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2415 (Admin)) determined that in the case of ongoing summary offences - in that case ongoing breaches of housing legislation - the 6 month time limit does not begin until the last known date of the commission of the offence.
The 6 month rule applies to all summary offences, except where the relevant legislation specifically states otherwise. For example, section 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 allows offences under that legislation to be tried if an information is laid within 3 years of the offence starting and within 6 months of the prosecutor deeming there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.
The 6 month rule does not apply to indictable offences (e.g. indictable only and either-way offences).
Personally, I think this piece of legislation is useful because it reduces sluggishness on the part of the prosecution. It means summary offences are dealt with relatively quickly and efficiently, which is clearly to the advantage of all concerned.
Further reading:
Essential Magistrates' Court Law (aff. link)
This is very interesting. From the layperson's perspective, this seems to be sensible. What happened during the lockdowns/pandemic? Was the rule suspended at all or was it just that the court was informed and the hearings postponed?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment Anon. During lockdown a lot of the non-essential work was adjourned. Custody cases were the main priority, as those tend to be the most serious and with strict time-limits. As you might be aware, the courts are still dealing with a backlog of cases hanging over from covid. During my last sitting I was dealing with some cases from 2020/21. In the case of less serious, summary offences as long as the proceedings were initiated within 6 months of the offence taking place, the court can still deal with those even at this late stage.
ReplyDeleteThere is an issue since the new either way offence of causing serious injury by carless driving has come into effect. Investigations into this offence take longer than 6 months due to the serious nature of the offence, obtaining medical evidence, more reasonable lines of enquiries, forensic evidence etc…. If the medical evidence arrives after 6 months and does not fit the remit of (gbh level) serious or if the injury is boarderline abh/gbh and CPS dont charge as they feel its abh level then there is no option to prosecute for the regular without due care as this is summery and the 6 month limit lapsed.
ReplyDeleteThis is not an issue if its a decision between regular dangerous drive and serious injury by dangerous drive as both are either way.
A solution would be Amending s.127 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to allow A longer time limit for summary offences where medical investigation is ongoing.
A “stop the clock” rule during CPS or police investigation delays.
Or giving Magistrates discretion to allow out-of-time charges in the interests of justice (as exists in some other jurisdictions)
We have s24 if a defendant was found not guilty for the serious offence so could apply this to do the regular but if the CPS dont charge in the 1st place s24 cannot be used and the regular wdc is out of time so no case can go ahead.
The 6-month time limit is a legacy rule from a time when cases were simpler and evidence less complex. For modern road traffic investigations, it’s often unworkable. There might be a case with 10 body worn video clips, the investigator has to watch them all, the disclosure officer has to watch them all again, they have to be redacted and clipped for the CPS Pre charge review and this is usually evidence that does not form part of the case, mainly unused materials. Law reform is the only structural fix that would prevent victims and families from being denied justice because of procedural expiry.