Williams v DPP

After expiry of the six-month limit, a summary information may be amended to allege a different offence where the new offence arises from the same or substantially the same facts and the amendment is in the interests of justice. The first issue is fact-specific. The second requires close attention to delay, the need for any adjournment and the parties’ case-management duties under the Criminal Procedure Rules. An adjournment should be rare where the amended offence arises from substantially the same facts. Prosecutors must identify charging errors promptly and apply to the court for directions before the trial. Where avoidable prosecutorial delay would require a substantial adjournment, the interests of justice may require refusal of the amendment.

The claimant faced a charge under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for failing to provide a specimen of breath. On the day fixed for trial, the prosecution applied to amend the charge to failure to provide a specimen of urine under section 7(6)(b). The magistrates allowed the amendment but adjourned the trial.

The claimant challenged that decision. The central issues were whether the amended offence concerned the same misdoing as the original charge and whether allowing the amendment, with the resulting adjournment, was in the interests of justice.

1. Appeal allowed and matter remitted. The magistrates were directed to refuse the prosecution’s application to amend the charge.
2. Under sections 123 and 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the six-month limitation period does not prevent amendment after expiry where the new offence alleges the same misdoing and the amendment is in the interests of justice. The same misdoing requirement means that the new offence must arise from the same or substantially the same facts as the original offence.
3. The same misdoing requirement was satisfied. The failures to provide breath and urine specimens occurred within minutes, arose from the same roadside and police-station events, and concerned testing the claimant’s fitness to drive. The phrase must not be construed narrowly. Whether it is satisfied remains fact-specific.
4. The interests-of-justice requirement was not satisfied. The prosecution had failed to identify the charging error before the case-management hearing and had failed to seek an earlier hearing once the error was discovered. The adjournment from October 2007 to February 2008, and ultimately to March 2008, was wholly disproportionate for a simple summary matter.
5. Case-management hearings are substantive occasions on which the parties must examine their cases, identify the issues and assist the court to use its limited resources efficiently. Lawyers should deal with an amendment at court where possible. An adjournment merely to consider the position should be measured in minutes, not months, unless compelling reasons exist.
6. Mr Justice Burton agreed. He expressly rejected reliance on the suggestion in Thornhill v Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court and the CPS that failure to provide breath and urine specimens necessarily involved different wrongdoing. That was not the proper test and should not be followed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The court allowed the challenge to the magistrates’ decision and remitted the matter with a direction that the prosecution’s amendment application be refused.
2. Chorley Wood Magistrates’ Court: The magistrates had allowed amendment of the charge from failure to provide a breath specimen to failure to provide a urine specimen and adjourned the trial.