Price v Cheshire East Borough Council

When an offence has no specific sentencing guideline, an analogous guideline may inform a mode-of-trial decision only if it is genuinely analogous and concerns a similar level of seriousness. A guideline founded on dishonesty cannot ordinarily be used for regulatory offences in which dishonesty is not an ingredient. Magistrates deciding whether to decline jurisdiction must ask whether the custody threshold is passed, or whether a sentence exceeding their powers may be appropriate. They need not decide whether custody is a highly likely outcome.

Crimea Price appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the South Cheshire Justices to commit her to the Crown Court for trial on two offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The charges concerned misleading and aggressive commercial practices arising from alleged unnecessary building work and demands for cash payment from an elderly consumer.

The Justices had initially considered summary trial appropriate, but reconsidered the decision under section 142 after being advised to use the fraud sentencing guidelines. The central issues were whether that approach was lawful and what threshold the Justices should apply when assessing their sentencing jurisdiction.

1. The appeal succeeded to the extent that the Justices had approached the mode-of-trial decision on an erroneous legal basis. The matter was remitted to them for reconsideration.
2. Where no sentencing guideline specifically applies, magistrates may consider an analogous guideline only where the guideline truly concerns an analogous offence or one of a similar level of seriousness. The fraud guideline was inappropriate because it was predicated on dishonesty, whereas dishonesty was not an ingredient of the regulatory offences. This conclusion was supported by R v Stone and Moore [2012] EWCA (Crim) 186.
3. The Justices had wrongly treated a highly likely custodial sentence as the relevant test. The correct question was whether the custody threshold was passed: whether, on the facts, a court might properly impose imprisonment, a community sentence rather than a fine, or a fine exceeding the magistrates’ statutory maximum.
4. On the information available, the allegations were capable of justifying the view that the magistrates’ powers might be insufficient. However, because the Justices had been influenced by the wrong guideline and had applied the wrong threshold, the High Court declined to determine the jurisdiction issue itself.
5. The Justices were directed to reconsider the matter on a proper basis, obtaining fuller details from the prosecuting authority. The prosecuting authority was also urged to reconsider whether summary trial was appropriate. Costs were to be paid out of central funds, subject to the necessary order.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the case stated appeal in substance and remitted the mode-of-trial question to the South Cheshire Justices for reconsideration.
2. South Cheshire Justices: initially decided that summary trial was appropriate, then reconsidered the matter under section 142 and committed the appellant to the Crown Court.