Zykin v Crown Prosecution Service

Section 142(1) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 gives a magistrates’ court a limited power to correct a decision affected by mistake or akin to the slip rule. It does not confer a general power to reopen an earlier decision whenever justice appears to require it.

A magistrates’ court enforcing a Crown Court confiscation order cannot vary or alter the order. A challenge that the defendant’s realisable assets are insufficient must instead proceed by an application for a certificate of inadequacy. The court cannot use section 142 to act as an appellate court against another magistrates’ court decision.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to dishonesty offences and received a custodial sentence and a confiscation order under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. After enforcement proceedings, a magistrates’ court issued a warrant committing him to a further term of imprisonment for non-payment.

The appellant later applied under section 142(1) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 to reopen that decision. A Deputy District Judge refused the application. The appeal by way of case stated concerned whether the decision could be reopened and whether the warrant could be revoked.

1. The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The Deputy District Judge was correct to decline to reopen the magistrates’ court’s decision of 9 September 2008 or revoke the warrant of commitment.
2. Section 142(1) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 is expressed broadly, but its scope is limited. Following R v Croydon Youth Court, ex parte DPP [1997] 2 CrAppR 411 and Holme v Liverpool City Justices & Crown Prosecution Service [2004] EWHC 3131 (Admin), it operates in a situation akin to mistake or under the slip rule. It does not provide a general jurisdiction to reconsider arguments that were not put before the original court.
3. The magistrates’ court’s function was to enforce the confiscation order in the terms made by the Crown Court. It had no power to vary or alter those terms. Any contention that the defendant’s realisable assets were less than the amount used to fix the order should be pursued by an application for a certificate of inadequacy.
4. The original magistrates’ court decision was not shown to contain any error. Although a warrant of commitment for a financial penalty may generally be a last resort, the court had no alternative proposal before it on the facts presented.
5. The court indicated that the Crown Prosecution Service would not oppose a certificate of inadequacy application and that the Crown Court at Southwark might be the proper forum to resolve the dispute concerning the money held in Mr Dujon’s name. That observation did not affect the appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated from the Deputy District Judge’s refusal of the section 142(1) application was dismissed. Mr Justice Bean gave judgment and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones agreed.