Green & Green Scaffolding Ltd v Staines Magistrates' Court

Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 permits a magistrates' court to reopen a case only where the defendant has been found guilty. It does not apply after the prosecution has withdrawn the charges. A common-law power to review proceedings may exist where an irregularity has vitiated them, but a later decision by another prosecuting authority to offer no evidence does not retrospectively vitiate an earlier withdrawal. The court's unfulfilled intention, or a mistake about the consequence of withdrawal, is insufficient without a qualifying irregularity.

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the Staines justices to set aside the withdrawal of summonses brought by the Vehicle Operator Services Agency and to permit its prosecution to continue.

The VOSA and Crown Prosecution Service proceedings arose from the same incident and alleged duplicate offences. VOSA withdrew its summonses while the CPS prosecution was continuing. The CPS subsequently offered no evidence for independent reasons. The justices then reopened the matter, relying on a supposed common-law power to review proceedings and on the interests of justice. The central issue was whether the withdrawal could lawfully be set aside.

1. The decision was quashed. The Divisional Court held that the justices had no legal basis for setting aside the withdrawal of the VOSA summonses and permitting the prosecution to continue.
2. Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 applies only where the defendant has been found guilty. It does not apply where the prosecution has withdrawn the charges, as confirmed by R v Gravesend Justices ex p Dexter [1977] Crim LR 298 and Coles v East Penrith Justices [1998] 162 JP 687.
3. A common-law power to retry a case may arise where an irregularity has vitiated the earlier proceedings. R v Marsham ex p Lawrence [1912] 2 KB 263 concerned an invalid first conviction because a witness had given evidence unsworn. It did not support reopening the present proceedings, which involved no comparable irregularity.
4. When the VOSA summonses were marked withdrawn, the CPS prosecution was still being pursued. The magistrates had no power to ensure that the CPS case continued. The CPS's later decision to offer no evidence, being independent of the withdrawal, did not vitiate it.
5. The justices' mistaken intention that both sets of summonses should not be withdrawn was irrelevant. There was no irregularity capable of invalidating the withdrawal. The decision to review the matter and revive the VOSA prosecution was therefore unfounded.

Costs were ordered from central funds.

The judgment itself records no earlier appellate decision. It was a judicial review of the Staines justices' decision dated 20 June 2007 to set aside the withdrawal of the VOSA summonses and permit the prosecution to continue.