Brooklyn House Ltd v Commission for Social Care Inspection

Offences under regulations 12(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 are offences of strict liability. The prosecution need not prove a mental element, although strict liability is not absolute liability. The actus reus depends on whether proper provision or effective arrangements existed, judged by the outcome and by the standards enabled under section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000. The issue is one of fact and degree. It is unnecessary in every case to identify a specific defect or omission in the arrangements as the cause of the failure. A statutory prosecuting authority need not prove its internal authorisation procedures when it brings proceedings in its own name. A costs order need not bear an arithmetical relationship to the fine, provided it is not ordinarily grossly disproportionate.

Brooklyn House Ltd, the registered operator of a care home, appealed by way of case stated after conviction before a Deputy District Judge at Central Norfolk Magistrates’ Court. The convictions concerned the availability, recording and safe administration of medicines under regulations 12(1) and 13(2) of the Care Homes Regulations 2001.

The appeal raised three questions: whether the prosecution had been properly authorised under section 29 of the Care Standards Act 2000; what mental element and actus reus the regulations required; and whether an order requiring payment of £25,000 prosecution costs, following fines totalling £4,000, was lawful.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Authorisation. Section 29 of the Care Standards Act 2000 was satisfied because the proceedings had been brought by the Commission for Social Care Inspection itself. The Commission did not have to prove the internal procedures by which its decision to prosecute had been reached. The first question therefore required no determination on the evidence.
2. Liability under the regulations. The offences under regulations 12(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Care Homes Regulations 2001 were offences of strict liability. There was no mental element. Section 30 of the 2000 Act could make an individual officer’s state of mind relevant, but that issue did not arise in this case.
3. Strict liability was not absolute liability. The court had to determine whether the statutory requirements of proper provision and arrangements had been met. That assessment could take account of the outcome, including defective or incomplete medication records. It was a question of fact and degree. The National Minimum Standards issued under section 23 of the 2000 Act were relevant and had to be taken into account, but they did not create or define the offences.
4. The Commission did not always have to attribute the failure to a particular defect or omission in the arrangements. Regulation 43 provided some procedural protection through notice and an opportunity to make representations. The remaining issues were factual, and no appeal on those findings was available through this procedure.
5. Costs. The principle stated in R v Northallerton Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Dove [2000] 1 Cr App R (S) 136 did not require an arithmetical relationship between the fine and costs. In light of the contested three-day hearing, extensive representations and the authority issue, the £25,000 order disclosed no error.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by case stated from convictions and the costs order made by a Deputy District Judge at Central Norfolk Magistrates’ Court was dismissed.