Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission v Forrest

A statutory reasonable-excuse defence does not ordinarily include the privilege against self-incrimination where Parliament has expressly provided that privilege elsewhere in the same Act but omitted it from the relevant provision. Potentially incriminating information may still have to be supplied, with admissibility addressed in any subsequent criminal trial. The public importance of enforcing child-maintenance obligations supports that construction. Time may be extended for a late case-stated appeal where the delay is short, no material prejudice is shown, the breach is not contumelious, and the issue merits determination.

The Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission appealed by way of case stated from the acquittal of Mr Forrest by justices sitting for the Local Justice Area of North Wales. He had been charged under section 14A(3) of the Child Support Act 1991 with failing to comply with a request for information. The justices accepted that he had a reasonable excuse under section 14A(4), because supplying the information might expose his wife to prosecution.

The application to lodge the case stated was ten days late. The Divisional Court considered whether to extend time and whether protection against self-incrimination or the risk of another person’s prosecution could amount to a reasonable excuse under section 14A(4).

1. The court extended time for lodging the application. The delay was only ten days, no prejudice had been shown, the administrative explanation did not demonstrate contumelious disregard of the rules, and the point raised was sufficiently significant to merit determination.

2. The justices had erred in law. Section 15(7) of the Child Support Act 1991 expressly protected a person from being required to answer questions or give evidence tending to incriminate that person or a spouse or civil partner, but only where the requirement arose under section 15. The information request arose under section 14. The omission of equivalent wording from section 14A indicated that the defence was unavailable.

3. The court applied R v Hertfordshire County Council, ex p Green Environmental Industries [2000] 2 AC 412. A statutory power to require information may exclude the privilege against self-incrimination by necessary implication. Potentially incriminating information may have to be provided, while its use in a later criminal trial can be considered by the trial judge. The approach was consistent with Sanders v United Kingdom [1996] 23 EHRR 313.

4. The public importance of securing child-maintenance payments supported enforcement of the information requirement. Possible exceptional adverse consequences for children or another person did not justify weakening it. Protecting the wife from possible prosecution was therefore not a reasonable excuse.

5. The appeal was allowed, but conviction was not directed. The matter was remitted to the same justices to determine whether another reasonable-excuse ground had been raised and remained undecided.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The Divisional Court allowed the appeal by way of case stated against the acquittal by the North Wales justices and remitted the matter to them for consideration of any remaining defence.