Brown v Director of Public Prosecutions

Under section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, issuing a written charge and serving it are separate steps. A written charge is issued when the document is completed, with all relevant details, in the form required for service. A decision by the prosecutor to charge, or preparatory steps such as placing the document in an envelope, is insufficient. The charge need not have been served or placed before a court within the six-month limitation period. Significant unjustified delay between issue and service may constitute an abuse of process.

The appellant was convicted of speeding. The written charge and single justice procedure notice were produced on 21 April 2018, within six months of the alleged offence, but posted for service on 23 May 2018. The magistrates held that issue occurred when the prosecutor determined to issue the documents and dismissed the limitation argument.

On appeal by way of case stated, the central question was when a written charge is issued for the purposes of section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, as amended by section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction stood because the written charge and single justice procedure notice were issued on 21 April 2018, within the statutory six-month period.
2. Issuing a written charge and serving it are discrete statutory and procedural steps. The issue of a written charge does not occur only when the document is posted or otherwise served, and it does not require the information to have been placed before a court or otherwise made public.
3. A written charge is issued only when the document itself has been completed, with all relevant details, in the form required for service. A prosecutor’s decision to charge, or an unspecified tangible signification of that decision, is insufficient.
4. The former procedure of laying an information or complaint before magistrates could not be used to recast the statutory written-charge procedure. The decision in Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2007] EWCA 614 (Admin) did not assist because it concerned the superseded two-stage procedure.
5. Where a written charge is issued in time but there is subsequently significant, unwarranted or unjustified delay before service, the appropriate remedy is abuse of process. Prosecutors were advised, as a matter of practice, to complete issue and service within six months where possible.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and upheld the conviction.