Atkinson v Director of Public Prosecutions

For the six-month limitation period under Magistrates Courts Act 1980, an information is laid only when it is sufficiently complete and effectively communicated to the magistrates’ court. A date initially entered on a computer system is not necessarily the date of laying.

If the prosecution cannot prove, to the ordinary criminal standard, that the information was laid within time, the magistrates’ court must decline jurisdiction. The issue is one of jurisdiction, not abuse of process. Article 6 fairness considerations do not cure the absence of jurisdiction.

The appellant was prosecuted in the Ealing Magistrates’ Court for carrying an insecure load, contrary to Regulation 100(2) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The information date printed on the summons preceded expiry of the six-month period, but the summons could not have been generated until after that period. The computer system permitted further entries or amendments before validation, and there was no evidence establishing when the information became complete and was effectively laid.

The District Judge refused a stay for abuse of process. The appeal by case stated concerned whether the proceedings should have been stopped because the date of laying could not conclusively be determined.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was quashed and the matter remitted to the District Judge with a direction to decline jurisdiction.
2. Section 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 requires the information to have been laid within six months. Under R v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrates, ex parte Hill [1983] AC 328, a written information is laid when received at the office of the clerk to the justices for the relevant area.
3. With a computer-based system, the initial data-entry date shown on a summons may not be the effective date of laying. Further entries may be needed to complete, amend or correct the information before validation. The effective date is therefore the date on which the information satisfies the necessary requirements and is laid, not necessarily the initial entry date.
4. Following Lloyd v Young & Ors [1963] Crim LR 703, where the evidence leaves the magistrates in doubt whether the information was laid within the limitation period, they are entitled to, and should, decline jurisdiction. The issue is determined according to the ordinary criminal burden and standard of proof.
5. The District Judge wrongly treated the issue as one of abuse of process. Abuse of process can arise only where the court has jurisdiction. A lack of evidence proving timely laying cannot be remedied by the absence of bad faith, the possibility of a fair trial, or Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
6. The court noted obiter that computer systems should be designed to make the dates of subsequent entries retrievable, or to make validation the legally identifiable point at which the information is laid.

• Ealing Magistrates’ Court: on 14 August 2003 the District Judge ruled that the prosecution should proceed. A different bench convicted the appellant on 16 September 2003.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal by case stated was allowed. The conviction was quashed and the matter remitted with a direction that the District Judge decline jurisdiction.