Westminster City Council v Owadally & Anor

A guilty plea indication under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s.17A must be made personally by the accused. Counsel cannot give a binding indication on the accused’s behalf. Non-compliance is jurisdictional, rather than a mere procedural irregularity, and invalidates the subsequent committal and proceedings. Waiver, ratification, acquiescence or participation in later proceedings cannot confer jurisdiction retrospectively. Challenges should ordinarily be brought promptly by case stated or judicial review. The court adopted a pragmatic procedural course in this exceptional case, but emphasised that it was no general guide for future applications.

Westminster City Council prosecuted the defendants for breaches of planning enforcement notices under s.179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The defendants attended Westminster Magistrates’ Court, where their barrister indicated guilty pleas on their behalf. The proceedings were then committed to the Crown Court for confiscation proceedings under s.70 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

After approximately 21 months, the defendants challenged the validity of the pleas and committal. The Crown Court held that the pleas were invalid and remitted the cases to the magistrates’ court. The matter came before the Administrative Court by case stated. The central issues were whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction to determine the challenge, whether s.17A required personal indication of a guilty plea, and whether delay and participation in later proceedings could cure the defect.

1. The Crown Court had no supervisory jurisdiction to quash the magistrates’ court committal. Its decision was therefore quashed. The Administrative Court treated the proceedings pragmatically as substantive judicial review of both courts’ decisions, waiving procedural requirements in the exceptional circumstances.

2. Under s.17A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the accused must personally indicate whether he or she would plead guilty or not guilty. Section 17A(6), read with s.9(1), treats an indication of guilty as a guilty plea. The position was analogous to arraignment in the Crown Court. The rules in R v Ellis (1973) 57 Cr App R 571 and R v Williams [1978] QB 373 were therefore applicable and strongly persuasive.

3. The statutory requirements were jurisdictional. The court distinguished a jurisdictional defect from a mere procedural failure. Under the approach explained in R v Ashton [2006] EWCA Crim 794, the court first asks whether Parliament intended non-compliance to invalidate the ensuing act. If the defect is jurisdictional, waiver cannot confer jurisdiction. The authorities, including R v Cockshott and Others [1898] 1 QB 582, R v Kent Justices, Ex parte Machin [1952] 2 QB 366 and R (Rahmdezfouli) v The Crown Court sitting at Wood Green v The London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2998 (Admin), treated non-compliance with the relevant statutory requirements as jurisdictional.

4. The defendants’ admission at the first Crown Court hearing and their participation in confiscation proceedings could not cure the defect. Once the facts were established and the challenge properly entertained, the pleas, committal and ensuing Crown Court proceedings were invalid. The indications of guilty pleas, the magistrates’ court committal and the Crown Court decision were quashed.

5. The court noted that delay would ordinarily be addressed through the applicable time limits, permission requirements and consideration of prejudice. It also observed that the presumption of regularity should receive close attention where a personal plea is challenged long after the event. Those observations did not alter the result on the facts found in this exceptional case.

1. Southwark Crown Court — HHJ Grieve QC held that the guilty plea indications made by counsel were invalid and remitted the cases to the magistrates’ court.
2. High Court (Administrative Court) — the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the challenge. Its decision, the magistrates’ court committal and the plea indications were quashed. Further directions were left to the magistrates’ court.