London Borough of Newham, R (on the application of) v Stratford Magistrates' Court

A magistrates’ court should issue summonses on informations properly laid unless there are compelling reasons not to do so, such as abuse of process or impropriety. Its function at that stage is not to decide which charges would most fairly or efficiently determine the defendant’s criminality. The prosecuting authority is generally entitled to formulate distinct or alternative charges, subject to the ordinary requirements governing informations and process. Charges are not duplicative merely because they arise from related facts where they allege different offences with different elements.

The claimant, a trading standards authority, sought judicial review of a decision by the district judge at Stratford Magistrates’ Court to refuse certain summonses against a defendant accused of offences involving false vehicle mileages and service records. The refused charges included obtaining property by deception under the Theft Act 1968 and additional offences under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The magistrates’ court considered that fewer charges adequately reflected the defendant’s criminality and avoided duplicity or overloading. By the time of the hearing, the defendant had pleaded guilty and been sentenced, so no quashing order was sought. The central issue was whether the issuing court had a broad discretion to limit properly laid informations at the summons stage.

The claim was well-founded. Declaratory relief was granted, and the decision refusing to issue the summonses in the requested form was declared flawed and not properly open to the magistrates’ court. No order as to costs was made.

1. Scope of the issuing function. The decision whether to issue a summons is judicial, but the discretion is not unfettered. Following R v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Klahn [1979] 1 WLR 933, and adopting the general summary in Stone’s Justices Manual, the ordinary position is that process should issue on informations properly laid unless compelling reasons exist, most obviously abuse of process or impropriety.
2. Charges under different enactments. The magistrates wrongly treated charges of obtaining property by deception under section 15 of the Theft Act 1968 as duplicative of charges under section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The offences had distinct elements. In particular, deception charges required proof of dishonesty, while the Trade Descriptions Act charges raised different requirements, including acting in the course of a trade or business. It was legitimate for the prosecutor to include such charges in the alternative.
3. Distinct allegations concerning the same vehicle. Allegations that service records misstated mileage and that a vehicle had been serviced by a particular garage were distinct from odometer allegations and from each other. The issuing court had no entitlement to refuse them merely because they concerned the same vehicle or arose from related facts.
4. Improper consideration of ultimate disposal. At the summons stage the magistrates’ court should not decide whether fewer charges would adequately reflect the defendant’s criminality, avoid overloading, or permit the fairest trial. Those matters may fall for consideration later by the court dealing with the criminal proceedings. The possibility of statutory time limits also made refusal potentially significant.