Luton Borough Council v Altavon Luton Ltd & Ors

For a continuing offence, the statutory limitation period runs from the date on which the offending conduct ends, rather than necessarily from the date when the prosecuting authority first suspects that an offence is being committed. Earlier knowledge may be relevant to obtaining sufficient grounds to investigate, but it does not prevent a continuing offence from being committed afresh until the relevant conduct ceases.

Where entry and inspection are necessary to identify the detail of regulatory breaches, the limitation period may run from that inspection. The court may distinguish an authority concerning a different statutory complaint and factual context.

Luton Borough Council appealed by way of case stated from a decision of District Judge Dodd at Luton Magistrates’ Court on 9 August 2018. The district judge held that informations alleging offences concerning an unlicensed house in multiple occupation had been laid outside the six-month limit in section 127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.

The alleged offending began before 16 May 2017. The council laid the informations on 15 November 2017, following an inspection of the property on 16 May. The central issues were whether the offences were continuing, when the limitation period began, and whether the district judge had properly dealt with photographs and the dates of the inspection.

1. The appeal was allowed. The order of the district judge was set aside and the informations against all three respondents were reinstated.

2. The offences were continuing offences. They were committed afresh each day while the property remained an unlicensed house in multiple occupation and continued until Mr Fountain entered and inspected the property on 16 May 2017.

3. Under section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, an information had to be laid within six months from the time when the offence was committed. On the facts, the information laid on 15 November 2017 was within time because the offending continued until 16 May 2017.

4. Knowledge obtained before the inspection was relevant because it enabled the officer to obtain sufficient information and grounds to enter the property. It did not make the earlier date the date on which the continuing offences ceased. Entry and inspection were necessary to identify the detail of the regulatory breaches.

5. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Webb [2015] EWHC 3802 (Admin) was distinguishable. It concerned a complaint relating to civil proceedings following an animal seizure, and the relevant complaint was found to have arisen when the seizure occurred. The present case concerned continuing unlawful occupation which persisted until the inspection.

6. The district judge had not erred in refusing to admit the photographs in legal argument, since she had accepted both that they were taken and that they were taken on 16 May. The question concerning uncertainty over 15 or 16 May proceeded on an incorrect reading of her findings.

7. There was no order as to costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by way of case stated allowed; the district judge’s order was set aside and the informations were reinstated.
• Luton Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Dodd held on 9 August 2018 that the informations were out of time under section 127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.