Royal Mail Group Ltd v Allen

For the purposes of section 83 of the Postal Services Act 2000, the expression “a person who is engaged in the business of a postal operator” extends to an employee or agent of the postal operator. It is not confined to the undertaking or corporation operating the postal service.

The statutory definition of “postal operator” identifies the business undertaking. The offence provision uses wider language, which is apt to include an individual carrying out the operator’s functions. The legislative history and the nature of the offence of intentionally opening a mailbag support that construction.

The respondent, a postman employed by Royal Mail, pleaded guilty before Leicester justices to two offences under section 83(1) of the Postal Services Act 2000. He had retained a large number of postal packages and letters instead of delivering them.

At the Crown Court, the judge questioned whether the pleas were properly entered. He considered that a postman was not a person engaged in the business of a postal operator. Royal Mail obtained a case stated, raising the issue whether section 83 applied to an employee of a postal operator.

1. The appeal was allowed. The pleas of guilty were properly entered, the convictions stood, and the respondent was to be returned to the Crown Court for sentence.
2. The statutory definition of “postal operator” in section 125 of the Postal Services Act 2000 refers to the person providing the service of conveying postal packets, or related services such as receiving, collecting, sorting and delivering them. That person is ordinarily the business undertaking rather than an individual postman.
3. That conclusion did not determine the scope of section 83(1). The offence is committed by “a person who is engaged in the business of a postal operator”. In its statutory and legislative context, that wording is intended to include an employee or agent of the postal operator.
4. The distinction is reinforced by section 83(1)(b), concerning the intentional opening of a mailbag. It would be inconceivable that Parliament intended a corporation to commit an offence which necessarily involves an individual act.
5. The legislative history, including the earlier provisions of the Post Office Act 1953, supported that interpretation. The alteration to the definition of “postal operator” made by the Postal Services Act 2011 did not materially affect the construction of section 83(1) in relation to these offences.
6. The respondent was to be returned to the Crown Court for sentence. The court indicated that the procedural direction sending the matter back to the magistrates could be rescinded on written application.

1. Leicester justices: The respondent was committed for sentence on bail after pleading guilty to two offences under section 83(1) of the Postal Services Act 2000.
2. Leicester Crown Court: The judge questioned the pleas and concluded that a postman was not a person engaged in the business of a postal operator.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): On a case stated by Royal Mail, the court allowed the appeal, upheld the pleas and convictions, and directed that the respondent return to the Crown Court for sentence.