London Borough of Waltham Forest v Snaresbrook Crown Court & Anor

On an appeal by way of rehearing, the Crown Court has the same power as the magistrates’ court to proceed on a summons despite a slight drafting error, provided the error causes no materiality or injustice. It cannot exercise a wider power to amend the information. Where the facts correctly identify the defendant’s status and the error does not affect the issues or deprive the defendant of a defence, the Crown Court may proceed on the summons as it stands.

The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the Snaresbrook Crown Court, which had allowed Mohammed Asif Hussain’s appeal against conviction for breach of a planning enforcement notice.

The summons correctly alleged that Mr Hussain was the tenant of the premises but incorrectly charged an offence under section 179(1) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, rather than section 179(4) and (5). The Crown Court declined to proceed under the correct provisions because it considered that Mr Hussain would lose the statutory defence in section 179(3). The issues were whether that premise was correct and whether the Crown Court could proceed on the summons as drafted.

1. The claim succeeded. The Crown Court’s decision was quashed and the appeal was remitted to the Snaresbrook Crown Court for rehearing.

2. Under section 179(1) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, liability depended on the defendant being the owner of the land. The interested party was only the tenant during the relevant period. The correct charge therefore arose under section 179(4) and (5), which applied to a person having control of or an interest in the land other than the owner.

3. The statutory defence in section 179(3) was unavailable to the interested party because he was not the owner during the relevant period. The Recorder’s conclusion that proceeding under section 179(4) and (5) would deprive him of that defence was therefore based on an erroneous premise.

4. Following R v Swansea Crown Court ex parte Stacey [1990] RTR 183, the Crown Court has no jurisdiction to amend an information on an appeal by way of rehearing, but has the same power as the magistrates’ court to proceed on the information as it stands where the error is slight and causes no injustice.

5. The error was immaterial. The summons correctly stated that the interested party was the tenant, that fact was accepted at the hearing, and correcting the statutory provisions would not affect the resolution of the issues or cause injustice. The Crown Court was therefore entitled to proceed on the summons as it stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The decision of the Snaresbrook Crown Court was quashed and the appeal was remitted for rehearing.
• Snaresbrook Crown Court: Allowed the interested party’s appeal against conviction and sentence.
• Waltham Forest Magistrates’ Court: Convicted the interested party and imposed a fine of £5,500 with £500 costs.