Begum & Anor v Luton Borough Council

An information is laid when served in accordance with the applicable method under Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015. Handing an information to an authorised court officer gives same-day service. Leaving or posting it at the court, or sending it by DX, attracts the different dates specified by the Rules. A sub-contracted court security guard is not, merely by receiving deliveries and passing them to court staff, a court officer with implied authority to accept an information for same-day service under rule 4.3(1)(e). The jurisdictional six-month limit therefore remains strict. Administrative arrangements and the closure of court counters do not justify implying authority where the relevant functions and contractual arrangements do not confer it. Electronic service may provide a same-day method where the Rules permit it.

Luton Borough Council sought to prosecute Ghansia Begum and Mumtaz Begum for summary offences under the Housing Act 2004. On the final day of the six-month limitation period, council officers handed informations and draft summonses to a sub-contracted security guard at Luton Magistrates’ Court. The documents reached HMCTS administrative staff after the period had expired.

A District Judge held that the security guard had implied authority to accept the documents and that the informations were laid in time. The defendants appealed by way of case stated. The central issues were whether the guard was a court officer authorised under rule 4.3(1)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, and whether the informations were consequently laid within time.

1. The appeal was allowed. The Court answered both questions in the Case stated by the District Judge “No”.
2. The six-month period for laying an information is a jurisdictional requirement under section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The prosecution bears the burden of proving, to the criminal standard, that the information was laid in time. The date is governed by Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015, not by the date on which HMCTS staff opened and date-stamped the documents.
3. Rule 4.3 concerns service by handing a document to a court officer with authority to accept it. Where that method applies, service occurs on the day of handover. Rules 4.4 and 4.5 provide different methods, including leaving, posting and DX, with the later service dates specified by rule 4.11. The distinction is legally material.
4. A court security guard may receive and pass on documents as part of receiving deliveries. That does not, without express authority, make the guard an appropriate member of court staff authorised to accept an information for the purposes of rule 4.3(1)(e). The originating nature of the process and its jurisdictional consequences weigh against implying such authority. The fact that the guard was sub-contracted was relevant, although subcontracting alone would not be determinative; the nature of the functions and duties was more important.
5. The closure of court counters and practical considerations did not require the implication of authority. The informations could have been left or posted, but would then have been served on the later dates prescribed by rule 4.11. They could also have been emailed before the applicable deadline. Section 2(6) of the Courts Act 2003 did not affect the result. On the facts, the informations were out of time.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Court allowed the appeal by way of case stated against the District Judge’s ruling of 9 June 2017. It answered both questions posed in the Case “No”.