Staffordshire County Council v Sherratt & Anor

The six-month time limit in Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 127, is displaced only by an express enactment providing a different period. Regulations made under an enabling Act do not automatically acquire the same legal effect as provisions of that Act. Clear deeming language is required if offences created by regulations are to benefit from an extended statutory prosecution period. References to regulations being made “under” an Act, their policy context, and explanatory materials cannot fill that statutory gap.

The claimant local authority prosecuted the defendants for animal-welfare offences under section 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and regulation 7 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007.

The District Judge held that the information concerning the regulation 7 offences had been laid outside the six-month period in section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The defendants appealed by way of case stated. The central issue was whether the extended time limit in section 31 of the 2006 Act applied to offences created by the 2007 Regulations.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had correctly concluded that the regulation 7 offences were out of time.
2. Section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 establishes the default six-month limit. That limit can be displaced only by an express enactment providing a different period.
3. Section 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 expressly provides an extended period for an offence under that Act. It does not expressly extend the period to offences created by regulations made under section 12.
4. The fact that the 2007 Regulations were made under section 12, and that section 12 authorised the creation of offences, did not make those offences offences under the 2006 Act for the purposes of section 31. Section 12(5), by contrast, contained an express deeming provision for the purposes of section 23. That contrast strongly indicated that no equivalent extension was intended for section 31.
5. The approach in Institute of Patent Agents v Lockwood [1894] AC 347 did not assist the claimant because the legislation there expressly provided that delegated provisions should have the same effect as if contained in the Act. No comparable wording appeared here. Modern examples, explanatory notes and the impact assessment could not amount to an express enactment.

The case stated was answered affirmatively and the appeal was dismissed.

• North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court: On 11 June 2018, District Judge Boswell held that the regulation 7 informations had been laid outside the section 127 time limit.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court answered the case-stated question affirmatively and dismissed the appeal.