Chopstix Trading Limited, R (on the application of) v Luton Magistrates' Court

An application for a magistrates’ court summons complies with Criminal Procedure Rules r 7.2(3)(b)(i) if, from the information supplied, the court can establish that the application was made within the applicable statutory time limit. The application need not state the time limit expressly.

The rule is procedural. Unless the statutory scheme clearly provides otherwise, non-compliance does not invalidate the summons or remove the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction. A procedural rule made under the Courts Act 2003 cannot displace jurisdiction conferred by primary legislation.

Chopstix faced three summonses alleging offences under Regulation 19 of the Food Safety & Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. The alleged offences occurred on 21 January 2020. The Council applied for summonses on 14 January 2021, within the applicable time limit, but did not state the time limit in its application. The summonses were issued on 25 January 2021 and later corrected and served.

The district judge accepted that the application did not comply with Criminal Procedure Rules r 7.2(3)(b)(i), but held that the failure was procedural and did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. On judicial review, the issues were whether there had been compliance and, if not, whether the summonses were invalid.

1. Compliance with the rule. The court preferred the analysis in London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v Argos Limited and held that an application need not state expressly the applicable time limit. Compliance is established where the court can glean from the application the information needed to determine whether it was made in time, taking account of statutory time limits of which the court can be expected to know.
2. Application of that principle. Regulation 18 imposed a limit of three years from commission or one year from discovery, whichever was earlier. An application made within one year of commission was necessarily in time. Since the application identified the relevant offence date and was made on 14 January 2021, it demonstrated compliance with r 7.2(3)(b)(i).
3. Effect of non-compliance. Although the issue was strictly unnecessary to the result, the court intended to create binding authority on the consequence of non-compliance. It adopted Edis LJ’s reasoning in Argos. The rule is procedural and cannot, absent a clear indication to the contrary, remove the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction or render a summons a nullity.
4. Distinction from Lalchan. R v Lalchan concerned a statutory requirement for the Attorney General’s consent under primary legislation. That context differed materially from a procedural rule made by the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. The court rejected the submission that failure to comply with r 7.2(3) deprived the court of jurisdiction.
5. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The district judge was right to require the proceedings to continue.

• Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court: on 8 October 2021, the district judge refused Chopstix’s application for a declaration that the summonses were invalid and that the court lacked jurisdiction.
• High Court (Administrative Court): permission to apply for judicial review was granted on 14 June 2022. The application was dismissed, and the district judge’s decision was upheld.