Director of Public Prosecutions v Joann Jinks

For an extended summary-only time limit, time begins when an authorised prosecutor first considers material evidence which fulfils the full code test and thereby acquires knowledge of its content. It is immaterial that the prosecutor then decides that the evidence does not justify proceedings. A later prosecutor’s different assessment of the same evidence does not restart time. The position differs where further inquiries produce different evidence. Prosecutorial bodies must proceed with reasonable expedition, while allowing for review of an initial decision not to prosecute.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by case stated against the dismissal of proceedings against Joann Jinks for alleged offences under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The Deputy Chief Magistrate held that the six-month period under section 127(5)(b) began on 14 June 2021, when the first prosecutor considered the evidence, although she concluded that it was insufficient to justify proceedings. A second prosecutor reached the contrary conclusion on 18 October 2021. The issue was whether the relevant date was the first prosecutor’s consideration of the evidence or the later decision to prosecute.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrate was correct that the relevant date was 14 June 2021, so the proceedings were out of time.
2. Section 127(5) of the Communications Act 2003 requires attention to when evidence sufficient to fulfil the full code test first comes to the knowledge of an authorised prosecutor. The relevant date is when the evidence is first considered so that knowledge of its content is imparted, not necessarily when the prosecutor forms the opinion that proceedings are justified.
3. The statutory wording is consistent with Morgans v DPP [1999] 1 WLR 968, R (Chesterfield Poultry Ltd) v Sheffield Magistrates’ Court [2019] EWHC 2953 (Admin) and DPP v Cook [2022] EWHC 2963 (Admin). The Court applied the approach in those authorities. The contrary approach in R v Woodward [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin), treating the decision to prosecute as the relevant date, was not followed.
4. Knowledge acquired by an authorised individual prosecutor is imputed to the CPS. A change of prosecutor or a later change of mind on unchanged evidence cannot extend time. Where a second prosecutor considers different evidence generated by further inquiries, time runs from the later consideration of that different evidence.
5. The CPS or other prosecutorial body must proceed with reasonable expedition, subject to the possibility that an initial decision not to prosecute may be reviewed.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division), Divisional Court: dismissed the DPP’s appeal by case stated and upheld the decision of the Deputy Chief Magistrate at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: on 23 August 2022, dismissed the prosecution as brought outside the statutory time limit.