Noon, River Manager, Conservators of the River Cam v Matthews & Ors

A statutory body may have an implied power to delegate functions where the statutory scheme, organisational structure and practical demands make delegation appropriate. The extent of that power depends on the nature of the function. The body must retain responsibility for broad policy, but may delegate operational decisions, including individual decisions to prosecute, to a suitably senior officer. The requirement for oversight does not ordinarily oblige the body to consider every individual prosecution personally. It is sufficient that the body has adopted the relevant policy and retains appropriate supervision and review.

The Conservators of the River Cam appealed by way of case stated against a decision of the District Judge staying prosecutions against punt operators. The prosecutions alleged breaches of byelaws made under the River Cam Conservancy Act 1922. The District Judge held that the Conservators had unlawfully delegated the power to prosecute to their River Manager and had failed to exercise oversight and review.

The issues were whether the Conservators could delegate the function of bringing prosecutions and whether, on the agreed facts, they had retained sufficient oversight of the River Manager’s prosecutorial function.

1. Appeal allowed. The case was sent back to the South Cambridgeshire Magistrates’ Court to continue the hearing.

2. The starting point was that statutory powers should ordinarily be exercised by the person or body on whom they are conferred. Whether delegation is implied depends on the statutory context and the nature of the power. A stricter approach is appropriate for legislative, judicial, disciplinary or personally qualified functions. A less strict approach is appropriate where the power is operational, non-final, conferred on the head of a hierarchical organisation, and delegation is practically inevitable.

3. The Conservators could not delegate broad policy. They could, however, delegate the operational implementation of that policy to a sufficiently senior officer. The decision whether to prosecute was operational. It was subject to the court’s control when a summons was issued and during the ensuing proceedings, and requiring a body that met quarterly to decide every individual prosecution would be impractical.

4. The implied power extended to the River Manager’s investigation of suspected byelaw breaches, assessment of whether there was sufficient evidence, and decision whether to institute an individual prosecution, provided those decisions were made within the Conservators’ general policy.

5. On the agreed facts, the Conservators had adopted a policy of prosecuting unlawful punt operators. The River Manager was instructed to proceed, kept the Chair and Deputy Chair informed, and reported the position to the Conservators. The District Judge was therefore not entitled to conclude that the Conservators had surrendered all oversight and review.

6. The complaint that the decision was procedurally unfair did not establish a separate procedural-fairness defect. It was, in substance, another formulation of the alleged unlawful delegation.

The District Judge sitting at South Cambridgeshire Magistrates’ Court stayed the prosecutions on 4 March 2014. The Administrative Court allowed the appeal by way of case stated and directed that the proceedings continue.