Dougall v Crown Prosecution Service

A magistrates’ court may try a summary offence only where the information founding the prosecution was laid within six months of the offence, subject to any express statutory exception.

The rule applies even where the defendant was initially charged, outside the six-month period, with an indictable or either-way offence and the charge was later amended to a summary offence. An amendment cannot avoid the statutory time limit where no information was laid within that period.

The appellant was arrested after an alleged assault and was charged, approximately eight months after the incident, with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, an either-way offence. The charge was later amended to assault by beating, a summary-only offence.

Following conviction, the appellant appealed by way of Case Stated. The issue was whether the magistrates’ court had jurisdiction to try the amended summary offence when no information had been laid within six months of the alleged conduct.

1. The appeal was allowed and the certified question was answered no. The appellant’s conviction was quashed.
2. Section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 prevents a magistrates’ court from trying an information alleging a summary offence unless the information founding the prosecution was laid within six months of the offence.
3. By section 127(2), read with section 5 of Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, an either-way offence is an indictable offence for this purpose. The initial charge could therefore be commenced after six months. That did not authorise a later amendment to introduce a summary offence where no information had been laid within six months.
4. R v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher [1998] EWHC 228 (Admin) was materially distinguishable. In that case, the original information had been laid within the statutory period, although the amendment occurred later. The decision did not apply where both the original charge and the amendment occurred outside the period. The Deputy District Judge therefore misapplied that authority and failed to give effect to the plain words of section 127.
5. The amendment made on 18 August 2016 was unlawful. The subsequent confirmation of it was also wrong in law, so the conviction could not stand.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On appeal by way of Case Stated, the court allowed the appeal, answered the certified question in the negative and quashed the conviction.