Chesterfield Poultry Ltd v Sheffield Magistrates Court

A prosecutor’s certificate under Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, section 41, is conclusive evidence of the relevant prosecution date if it is properly signed and states the required fact. In the absence of fraud, it may be challenged only if inaccurate on its face. Extraneous evidence cannot be used to show that the certified date is wrong.

The relevant prosecutor is the individual responsible for deciding whether to commence proceedings. The statutory test involves both a prima facie case and the public interest. Abuse of process remains a distinct issue concerned with fairness, but it cannot be used to circumvent the conclusive effect of a valid certificate.

The claimant operated an FSA-approved slaughterhouse. The CPS commenced proceedings in January 2018 concerning the deaths of 5,644 chickens in September 2016, alleging breaches of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015.

The District Judge held that a prosecutor’s certificate identifying 8 November 2017 as the relevant date was valid and conclusive, and that the proceedings were in time. She also held that delay by the CPS did not make a fair trial impossible. The claimant sought judicial review, challenging the certificate, the calculation of time and the refusal to stay the proceedings for abuse of process.

1. The claim was dismissed. The proceedings were commenced within time and there was no basis for a stay for abuse of process.
2. Section 41 creates an exception to the general six-month time limit in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. It must be given its natural meaning. The relevant date is when evidence which the individual prosecutor thinks sufficient to justify proceedings comes to that prosecutor’s knowledge. The assessment concerns both whether there is a prima facie case and whether prosecution is in the public interest.
3. The relevant prosecutor was the CPS lawyer responsible for deciding whether proceedings should commence, not the CPS collectively and not the date when the file was first received. Knowledge is acquired when the evidence has been considered so that its contents have been imparted, rather than merely when documents arrive. In this respect the court differed from the formulation in R v Woodward at [23(iii)].
4. A certificate in proper form is conclusive evidence of the relevant date. The certificate must comply strictly with the statutory requirements, but a valid certificate may be challenged only where it is inaccurate on its face or fraudulent. Extraneous evidence cannot establish that the certificate is wrong. The court followed the approach in R v Haringey Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Amvrosiou, Burwell v DPP, Azam v Epping Forest District Council and RSPCA v King.
5. Delay or paper-shuffling may in an appropriate case amount to abuse of process, particularly if it affects trial fairness. Here, the delay was regrettable but did not prevent a fair trial and there was no deliberate manipulation of the time limit. Abuse of process could not be used to evade the conclusive certificate.

Mrs Justice Jefford agreed. The claim was dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the interested party’s costs of £12,202.

1. Sheffield Magistrates’ Court: the District Judge held that the prosecutor’s certificate was valid and conclusive, the proceedings were in time, and a stay for abuse of process was unwarranted.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): judicial review dismissed. The District Judge’s decision was upheld.