Chief Constable of Cleveland Police v Vaughan

An application to state a case under Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 111, must be made within 21 days. The time limit is mandatory, and the court should not extend it where the application is substantially late and an extension would serve no useful purpose. Even where the proposed appeal concerns a possible lack of jurisdiction in the magistrates' court, the High Court may refuse an extension in its discretion, particularly where further proceedings would merely be activated. Questions about compensation for cash detained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should be pursued under the statutory compensation procedure.

The Chief Constable appealed by way of case stated from a decision of the Teesside Justices dated 24 November 2008. The justices had ordered the police to pay £1,000 costs after an application by Marie Vaughan for the return of cash seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The application to state a case was made on 20 January 2009, outside the 21-day period in section 111(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

The central issues were whether the High Court had power to extend the statutory time limit and, if so, whether an extension should be granted. The court also considered, in the background, whether the magistrates had jurisdiction to order costs.

1. The application for an extension of time was refused. The application to state a case was made well outside the 21-day period required by section 111(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
2. The court considered the statutory limit mandatory. Lord Justice Scott Baker relied on Michael v Gowland [1977] 1 WLR 276, which treated the equivalent provision as leaving no discretion to extend time. Mr Justice Cranston considered that CPR 3.1 did not displace the statutory requirement because the case-stated procedure was governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules. Rule 64.4 provided extensions for some aspects of the procedure, but not for the initial statutory application.
3. The court did not finally determine whether the rules had overtaken Michael v Gowland. It held that, even assuming a power to extend existed, the power should not be exercised. The request was made only after a substantial delay, and granting it would probably lead merely to compensation proceedings and further public expense.
4. The court observed that the magistrates' costs order appeared to lack a statutory jurisdictional foundation. Section 64(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 concerned costs on the making or dismissal of a complaint, whereas the application here had been withdrawn. Section 52(3) of the Courts Act 1971 did not provide the necessary foundation. Any claim arising from the detention of the cash should instead be pursued separately under section 302 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
5. The appeal therefore failed. The respondent was awarded the costs of the appeal.

• Teesside Justices: on 24 November 2008, ordered the Chief Constable to pay £1,000 costs following the withdrawal of the application concerning the seized cash.
• High Court (Administrative Court): refused an extension of time for the application to state a case and ordered the respondent's costs.