Crann v Crown Prosecution Service

Amendment of a summary information after the statutory time limit may be permitted where the new offence arises from the same or substantially the same facts and the amendment is in the interests of justice. The interests of justice include prompt disposal, proper criminal case management and any prejudice to the defendant. Each case must be assessed on its own facts. On appeal, the court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the magistrates. It should intervene only where the decision falls outside the range of reasonable responses.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated against the Sunderland Magistrates’ Court’s decision on 11 April 2012 to amend an information. The original allegation concerned failure, without reasonable excuse, to provide a breath specimen. The amended allegation concerned failure to provide a blood specimen.

The amendment was sought shortly before trial, after the CPS had failed to correct the charge earlier. The magistrates concluded that the amended charge arose from the same or substantially the same facts and that there would be no additional prejudice. The central issue was whether permitting the late amendment was in the interests of justice.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The magistrates had statutory authority under sections 123 and 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to allow an amendment where the new charge arose from the same or substantially the same facts as the original charge and the amendment was in the interests of justice.
2. The appellant accepted that the amended charge arose from the same or substantially the same facts. That issue was therefore not in dispute.
3. The interests of justice required consideration of the need for justice to be delivered promptly and of the parties’ obligations to conduct criminal proceedings properly and efficiently. A serious failure by the prosecution to identify and correct the appropriate charge could weigh against amendment, as illustrated by Williams v DPP, [2009] EWHC 2354 (Admin).
4. It was not appropriate simply to compare the facts with those in Williams v DPP. The relevant question was whether the principles governing the discretionary decision had been observed in the particular case.
5. The magistrates had been entitled to conclude that the amendment caused no additional prejudice. Although they had not expressly referred to the need for promptitude, the authorities, including Williams v DPP, had been drawn to their attention. It was difficult to conclude that the relevant considerations had not been in their minds.
6. Applying the appellate approach stated in Piglowska v Piglowska, [1999] 1 WLR 1360, the court was required to assume that the magistrates knew how to perform their functions and what matters to consider unless the contrary was demonstrated. The court could not substitute its own discretion and could interfere only if the decision fell outside the band of reasonable responses. That threshold was not met.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal by way of case stated, the court dismissed the challenge to the Sunderland Magistrates’ Court’s order of 11 April 2012 permitting amendment of the information.