Myers, R. v

A magistrates’ court has no jurisdiction to try a fresh information for a summary offence laid after the six-month limit in section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980. Section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 permits an eligible judge to sit as a District Judge, but does not disapply that jurisdictional time limit.

A summary offence may be included in an indictment only within the limited statutory power in section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. An offence under section 5(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 is not among the specified offences. An amendment made after the limitation period also requires the same misdoing as the original allegation; fundamentally different misconduct cannot meet that requirement.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to causing wasteful employment of police time contrary to section 5(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The charge was introduced as a new information after the six-month period for a summary offence had expired. The judge purported to sit as a District Judge under section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 and imposed a fine and costs.

Subsequent attempts to appeal were complicated by an erroneous certificate describing the conviction as one upon indictment. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) lacked jurisdiction over the summary conviction, but reconstituted itself as a Divisional Court to hear the matter by judicial review. The central issue was whether the judge had jurisdiction to entertain the late information.

1. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted and the conviction was quashed. The court reconstituted itself as a Divisional Court because the ordinary appeal routes had been frustrated by the unusual and prolonged procedural history. The applicant’s failure to seek correction in the magistrates’ court under section 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 did not make judicial review inappropriate in those circumstances.

2. Section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 barred the prosecution. On 28 April 2011 the Crown did not seek to amend either the existing indictment or the existing section 172 information. It instead laid a new information alleging the section 5(2) offence, knowing that it was outside the six-month period. The statutory wording prohibited the court from hearing it.

3. Section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 gave the judge the powers of a District Judge but did not confer jurisdiction to hear a time-barred information. The defect was jurisdictional, not a curable procedural irregularity. The court followed the analogous reasoning in R v Ashton & Ors [2006] EWCA Crim 794.

4. There was also no statutory power to add the section 5(2) offence to the indictment. Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 permits only specified summary offences to be included in an indictment founded on the same facts or evidence as an indictable count. Section 5(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was not specified in section 40(3).

5. In any event, no permissible amendment could have converted the perverting-the-course-of-justice allegation into the offence admitted by the applicant. The original allegation depended upon deliberate deception and false ownership arrangements. The applicant accepted only that he had failed to give the police further information which could have assisted their enquiries. Those were fundamentally different forms of misdoing.

It was therefore unnecessary to determine the challenges to the validity of the plea or to sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), sitting as a Divisional Court: permission for judicial review was granted. The court held that the late information was outside section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 and quashed the conviction.

• Sheffield Crown Court, 1 March 2013: declined to hear the applicant’s appeal, considering that the appropriate tribunal was the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

• Sheffield Crown Court, 28 April 2011: the judge purported to sit as a District Judge under section 66 of the Courts Act 2003, accepted a guilty plea to a new summary information and imposed a fine and costs.