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

A local authority may investigate alleged offences outside its area, but its authority to prosecute such offences must arise from statute. It may rely on delegated powers under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, or on section 222 where it considers prosecution expedient for promoting or protecting the interests of inhabitants of its area.

Section 222 is broadly worded. It can authorise prosecution of offences committed outside the authority’s area where the offences have a close connection with that area and its inhabitants. A written record of the decision is not essential, and the relevant consideration may be inferred from the evidence. The authority’s decision to prosecute was therefore valid.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions made by Cardiff Magistrates’ Court concerning informations laid by Cardiff City Council against her under sections 1(1)(a) and 20 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The informations alleged odometer offences involving vehicles sold in Gloucester and Newport.

The District Judge held that the informations were valid and had been properly amended under section 123 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The claimant challenged that conclusion, principally on the basis that the Council lacked authority to prosecute offences committed outside Cardiff and that the original informations were void. The central issue was whether section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 supplied that authority.

1. The application for judicial review was refused. The District Judge had relied on an incorrect factual basis, but the informations were nevertheless valid because the Council had authority to prosecute.

2. An offence under section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 is committed when the odometer is altered, rather than when the vehicle is subsequently offered for sale. The Council had initially proceeded on the wrong legal basis, but the evidence showed that it had intended to prosecute offences alleged to have occurred in Gloucester and Newport.

3. The Council’s power to investigate offences outside Cardiff was distinct from its power to prosecute them. Prosecution outside the authority’s area required either a delegation under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 or reliance on section 222.

4. Section 222 is extremely widely worded. There is no warrant for limiting its application to particular types of proceedings. It permits a local authority to prosecute legal proceedings where it considers prosecution expedient for promoting or protecting the interests of inhabitants of its area.

5. The Court of Appeal’s reasoning in R v Richards established that a written record of specific reliance on section 222 was unnecessary. The relevant consideration could be inferred. On the evidence, the Council had in any event specifically considered section 222 before laying the informations.

6. Brighton & Hove City Council v Woolworths Plc was distinguishable. There, the risk to the inhabitants of the prosecuting authority’s area was negligible. Here, the close connection between Supatax, its vehicles, its business and Cardiff made prosecution in the interests of Cardiff’s inhabitants. The precise location of the odometer alterations was irrelevant for the trial, provided that the conduct occurred in England or Wales.

7. Although not legally required, local authorities should ordinarily enter into section 101 agreements before laying informations alleging offences outside their area. Where section 222 is relied upon, recording the decision and reasons is also prudent.

Lord Justice Leveson agreed with Mr Justice Sweeney’s judgment.

The judgment itself records earlier proceedings:

• High Court (Administrative Court): in Regina (Donnachie) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court [2007] EWHC 1846 (Admin), the Court quashed the earlier time-limit ruling and committal and remitted the matter for redetermination.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the present application for judicial review was refused.