Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Section 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 applies to private prosecutors. A compliant certificate is conclusive evidence of the certified date unless fraudulent or plainly wrong. If plainly wrong, it must be disregarded and the magistrates must determine whether proceedings were brought in time. The issue is jurisdiction, not ordinarily abuse of process. The convictions were upheld because the proceedings were nevertheless commenced within time.

The appellant was convicted by justices of offences under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Crown Court dismissed her appeal, holding that section 31 applied and that the respondent’s certificate was not plainly wrong on its face.

On appeal by way of Case Stated, the Administrative Court considered whether section 31 applied to a private prosecutor, how a certificate could be challenged, and whether the convictions should stand.

1. Construction. “The prosecutor” in section 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 includes anyone initiating a prosecution under the Act, including a private prosecutor. Section 30 did not confine section 31 to statutory prosecutors.
2. Certificate. A certificate complying with section 31(2) is conclusive evidence of the certified date. It may be challenged only for fraud or because it is plainly wrong. “Patently misleading” is not a separate ground.
3. Jurisdiction. If the certificate is plainly wrong, it must be disregarded. The magistrates must then decide whether the information was laid within the period in section 31(1). The challenge is jurisdictional and should normally be raised as a preliminary point, although the magistrates determine the appropriate procedure.
4. Application. Although the certificate might have been found plainly wrong on further consideration, the available evidence indicated that the prosecutor considered the evidence sufficient by 8 January 2008. The proceedings were therefore brought in time. No useful purpose would be served by remittal, and the convictions were upheld.
5. The court stressed the need for prosecutors to take great care when certifying dates extending the time for criminal proceedings.

1. Crown Court at Gloucester: dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that section 31 applied, the certificate was not plainly wrong, and there had been no abuse of process.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): corrected the procedure for challenging the certificate but upheld the convictions because the proceedings were brought within time.