Woodward & Ors, R. v

For prosecutions under section 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the six-month period begins when the responsible prosecutor considers that the available evidence is sufficient to justify prosecuting the particular defendant in the public interest. It does not begin merely when investigators possess the evidence or when there is a prima facie case. A certificate under section 31(2) must comply strictly with the statutory requirements on its face. If defective, it is a nullity, but a later compliant certificate may be issued, subject to fraud, patent inaccuracy and possible abuse of process. If no valid certificate exists, the court must determine the time issue from all available evidence.

The Crown appealed by case stated against the dismissal by District Judge Lower at Wakefield Magistrates’ Court of prosecutions against five respondents for offences under sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The dismissal was based on the conclusion that the proceedings were out of time under section 31(1)(b).

The first certificate stated that sufficient evidence was known on 15 September 2015, but did not state when the prosecutor considered that proceedings were justified. Later certificates stated that this decision was made on 3 March 2016. The issues included the identity of the prosecutor, the validity and replacement of certificates, and the admissibility of extrinsic evidence.

Appeal allowed. The determination dismissing the proceedings was quashed and the matter was remitted to the magistrates’ court with a direction to refuse the application to dismiss.

1. Section 31(1)(b) requires the information to be laid within six months of the date when evidence sufficient, in the prosecutor’s opinion, to justify proceedings comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge. The relevant question is not whether there is merely a prima facie case, but whether prosecution of the particular person is justified in the public interest. The prosecutor may reasonably require time for investigation and assessment after the primary evidence has been gathered. [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin) [23], [27].
2. The prosecutor for these purposes is the individual responsible for deciding whether and against whom to prosecute. Investigators at the Food Standards Agency were not part of the prosecutor; the relevant prosecutor was the CPS reviewing lawyer, Mr Reid. [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin) [23], [26].
3. The March 2016 certificate was defective because it focused on when the evidence had been collected, rather than when the prosecutor considered that proceedings against the respondents were justified. The July certificates applied the correct test and were valid on their face. They were not excluded merely because an earlier certificate had been defective, and reliance on them was not an abuse of process in the circumstances. [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin) [28]-[30].
4. A certificate is an evidential shortcut and is not essential. If no valid certificate is available, the court must consider all available evidence, including documentary material not formally proved by a supporting statement. [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin) [23], [31]-[33].
5. The evidence showed that Mr Reid did not decide until 3 March 2016 that prosecution of the five respondents was justified. Proceedings commenced on 8 March 2016 were therefore brought in time. [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin) [32]-[35].

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Crown’s appeal by case stated, quashed the magistrates’ dismissal and remitted the proceedings with a direction that the application to dismiss be refused: [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin).
• Wakefield Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Lower dismissed the prosecutions on 9 September 2016, holding that they were out of time.