Donnachie, R (on the application of) v Cardiff Magistrates' Court

Under section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the offence of applying a false trade description to goods is complete when the false description is applied. In an odometer case, that occurs when the odometer is altered, not when the vehicle is sold or offered for sale.

For the alternative limitation period under section 19, the prosecutor is the enforcing local authority, rather than the individual officer authorised to lay the information. Knowledge obtained by the authority’s officers may therefore amount to discovery by the prosecutor. A preliminary ruling on jurisdiction by a magistrate is final and may be challenged by judicial review or case stated.

The claimant and another person were prosecuted by Cardiff County Council for alleged offences under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 involving altered odometers in hackney carriages.

The District Judge held that no offence was committed when the odometers were altered and treated the individual officer who laid the informations as the prosecutor for section 19 limitation purposes. He concluded that the informations were in time and committed the defendants for trial. He refused to state a case, but the claimant did not pursue that application.

The claimant sought judicial review of the jurisdictional ruling and refusal to state a case. The central issues were when the alleged offences were complete and who was the prosecutor for the purposes of discovery under section 19.

1. The claim for judicial review was granted. Although an examining magistrate makes no final decision when committing a defendant for trial, a ruling on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction is final and may be challenged by judicial review or case stated.

2. Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 create separate offences. Section 1(1)(a) concerns applying a false trade description, whereas section 1(1)(b) concerns supplying or offering to supply goods to which such a description is applied. A false description may be applied before sale. On the allegations in the amended summonses, the section 1(1)(a) offences were complete when the odometers were altered. The District Judge’s contrary conclusion was an error of law.

3. For section 19, the prosecutor was Cardiff County Council. It was the enforcing authority under section 26 of the 1968 Act and section 69 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. A corporate authority acts through its officers, so knowledge attributable to relevant officers may constitute discovery by the authority.

4. Treating the officer who merely received the papers shortly before the informations were laid as the prosecutor would largely defeat the purpose of the alternative limitation period. The District Judge therefore also erred in treating Mr Holland as the prosecutor.

5. The decision that the informations were laid in time and that the claimant should be committed was quashed. Declarations were made that the alleged offences were complete when the odometers were altered and that Cardiff County Council was the prosecutor under section 19. The matter was remitted to the District Judge for further findings of fact in accordance with those declarations. The claimant’s costs were ordered to be paid out of Central Funds.

• Cardiff Magistrates’ Court: The District Judge held on 12 February 2007 that the informations were laid in time and committed the claimant for trial. He refused to state a case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The jurisdictional ruling was quashed, declarations were made, and the matter was remitted to the District Judge.