Christopher Candlish v The Director of Public Prosecutions

For low-value shoplifting, the statutory aggregation rule is applied when the accused first appears before the magistrates to answer the charges. Until that stage, the theft remains an indictable offence, triable either way.

Where several charges are brought on the same occasion and their aggregate value exceeds £200, they are not low-value shoplifting offences. They therefore remain outside the six-month limitation in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The statutory scheme must be read as a whole, rather than applied serially to treat each charge as summarily triable before aggregation occurs.

The appellant faced eight theft charges concerning shoplifting offences committed between July and August 2018. Each item was valued below £200, but the aggregate value exceeded £200. The charges were issued by postal requisition in April 2019, more than six months after the alleged offences.

The magistrates held that the charges were not low-value shoplifting because of the aggregate value and that they had jurisdiction to try them. On a case stated, the appellant argued that the individual offences were summary offences until plea and allocation, and were therefore time-barred under section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The central issue was when the statutory aggregation rule determined the status of the offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates had jurisdiction to try the charges, and the charges were not time-barred.
2. The phrase “charged on the same occasion” in section 22 A(4)(b) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 refers to the occasion when the accused first appears before the magistrates to answer the charges. This accords with R v Harvey [2020] EWCA Crim 354.
3. Section 22 A must be read as a whole. To decide whether theft is low-value shoplifting, sections 22 A(3) and 22 A(4) must be considered together. The relevant determination occurs when the accused appears before the magistrates. Before then, the theft remains an indictable offence because it is triable either way.
4. Because the individual charges were aggregated at the first appearance and exceeded £200, none qualified as low-value shoplifting. The charges consequently remained indictable offences throughout the proceedings. Section 127(1) did not apply, by reason of section 127(2). The date on which a written charge is completed is relevant to the limitation issue for summary offences under the charge and requisition procedure: Brown v DPP [2019] EWHC 798 (Admin).
5. The construction adopted did not remove protection against unwarranted delay. The purpose of the six-month limitation includes ensuring that summary offences are charged and tried within a reasonable time, so that witnesses’ recollections remain clear and proceedings are not unnecessarily delayed. In an egregious case, unfair manipulation or delay might justify an application to stay the proceedings, consistently with R v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Justices [1976] 1 WLR 517.
6. The two questions in the case stated were answered respectively “Yes” and “No”.

• South Northumbria Justices sitting at Gateshead Magistrates’ Court: held on 23 July 2019 that the charges were lawfully before the court and were not time-barred.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by case stated and upheld the magistrates’ determination.