Media Protection Services Ltd v Crawford & Anor

The laying of an information before a magistrates’ court commences criminal proceedings. It is therefore conduct of litigation and a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. The statutory exception for activities unrestricted before the Act does not assist an unregulated commercial prosecutor acting for reward on behalf of another company. The relevant activity must be assessed in the context of the prosecutor’s role and the statutory regulation of legal services. An information laid unlawfully does not satisfy the time-limit provision governing summary proceedings. The resulting prosecution is incompetent and must be dismissed.

Media Protection Services Ltd brought a private prosecution against publicans Andrew and Christine Crawford. They were alleged to have dishonestly received a foreign satellite broadcast of a Premier League football match intending to avoid the applicable charge, contrary to section 297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The District Judge dismissed the informations after deciding that MPS’s prosecutions director had unlawfully conducted litigation by laying them, contrary to the Legal Services Act 2007. The case was stated for the Divisional Court. The questions concerned whether laying an information commenced proceedings, whether the pre-existing unrestricted-activity exception applied, and whether breach rendered the proceedings void.

1. The appeal was dismissed in substance. The questions in the case stated were answered in the District Judge’s favour.

2. Laying an information is the commencement of proceedings in a magistrates’ court. The court tries the information, not the summons. A summons or warrant is merely a means of securing the defendant’s attendance. Section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 confirms that laying the information stops time running. The conclusion was put beyond argument by R v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill, where the House of Lords held that laying the information founds the magistrates’ jurisdiction.

3. The activity therefore falls within paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Legal Services Act 2007 as conduct of litigation. The exception in paragraph 4(2) does not apply. It was directed to a right concerning a particular court or particular proceedings, whereas the appellant asserted a general right to lay informations in all magistrates’ courts and criminal proceedings.

4. The court also held that the appellant’s commercial role was decisive. MPS was acting for reward on behalf of FAPL, rather than as a litigant conducting proceedings on its own behalf. In that capacity Mr Hoskin acted as a solicitor within section 20 of the Solicitors Act 1974, as explained in Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes). The Criminal Procedure Rules did not override that prohibition.

5. The court distinguished the position of persons who do not act for reward, and recognised the statutory powers of police officers to commence proceedings. Those matters did not apply to this commercial prosecution.

6. Because the information was not lawfully laid, it did not satisfy section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The prosecution was incompetent, void, and properly dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court answered the questions stated in favour of the respondents and upheld dismissal of the informations.
• Chester Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Sanders dismissed the informations on 25 October 2011 after finding that the laying of them involved unlawful conduct of litigation.