Ogunsola, R (On the Application Of) v Crown Court At Aylesbury

A magistrates’ court lacks jurisdiction to try a summary-only offence where no information was laid within six months of the alleged offence. The position is unchanged where an indictable offence was later charged and the information or indictment was then amended to allege the summary offence. The statutory time limit cannot be avoided by relying on the Crown Court judge’s powers under Courts Act 2003, s. 66. A court may extend time for judicial review where unusual circumstances explain the delay and refusing relief would preserve an unlawful conviction. Prompt finality and the complainant’s interests remain important, but they cannot justify leaving a conviction without jurisdictional foundation in place.

The claimant had originally been charged by postal requisition with indictable offences. More than six months had elapsed since the alleged conduct, and no information had been laid during that period. At trial, the Crown Court judge purported to sit as a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), amended the proceedings to allege summary-only harassment, accepted the claimant’s guilty plea and imposed a community penalty. No evidence was offered on the indictable counts.

The judge later refused to extend time for an application to state a case. The claimant sought judicial review, challenging both that refusal and the legality of his conviction. The central issues were whether the statutory time limit deprived the court of jurisdiction and whether relief should be granted despite delay.

1. Jurisdiction under s. 127. Section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 imposes a jurisdictional requirement that proceedings for a summary-only offence be commenced within six months. The exception for indictable offences in s. 127(2) does not permit a summary offence to be introduced after that period where no information was laid in time.
2. The distinction in R v Scunthorpe Justices ex p McPhee [1998] EWHC 228 (Admin) was that the original information there had been laid within six months. That reasoning did not assist where no information had been laid within time. The court expressly endorsed and applied Dougall v CPS [2018] EWHC 1367 (Admin). The later indictable charge could not cure the absence of jurisdiction or support a subsequent amendment to a summary offence.
3. Although s. 66 of the Courts Act 2003 confers an original jurisdiction enabling a Crown Court judge to sit as a magistrates’ court, it does not authorise an order which a magistrates’ court itself could no longer make. The Crown Court’s sending order had also brought the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction to an end. The analysis was consistent with R v Gould and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 447.
4. The judge’s refusal to state a case was correct for a different reason. Under s. 111(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the 21-day period for applying to a magistrates’ court cannot be extended. The separate Crown Court time limit under CrimPR r. 35.2 can be extended.
5. The court extended time for judicial review. The claimant had relied on legal advice and had not caused the original illegality. The court rejected the view that he suffered no injustice merely because he had accepted the proposed course and avoided trial on more serious charges. The conviction and sentence for harassment were quashed. The damages claim was dismissed, and questions concerning personal information were left undecided.

• Aylesbury Crown Court: the claimant pleaded guilty to summary-only harassment after the judge purported to sit as a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), and was sentenced to a community penalty. Not-guilty verdicts were entered on the indictable counts.
• Aylesbury Crown Court: the judge refused to extend time and declined to state a case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): judicial review granted in substance. Time was extended and the harassment conviction and sentence were quashed.