Andreas Michli, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates Court

Where legislation permits prosecution within six months of the prosecutor obtaining evidence sufficient to justify proceedings, the relevant question is broader than whether there is a prima facie case or evidence sufficient to secure conviction. It includes the prosecutor’s assessment of whether prosecution is justified in the public interest.

Where a fixed penalty notice prevents proceedings during a payment period, evidence may not become sufficient to justify prosecution until that period expires and non-payment is known. A written charge is issued when completed in the form required for service. Its stated issue date is admissible evidence and binds the defendant unless properly challenged by contrary evidence.

The claimant sought judicial review of District Judge Snow’s refusal to state a case concerning his conviction for breaching coronavirus restrictions. The proposed appeal raised whether the prosecution was statute-barred under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and the extended limitation provision in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

The claimant argued that time began on the date of the offence or the first fixed penalty notice. The prosecution relied on the expiry of the fixed penalty payment period and, alternatively, the issue date stated on the charge sheet. The Divisional Court agreed to determine the substantive limitation issue.

1. The claim was dismissed. The prosecution was brought in time and the conviction was rightly maintained.

2. Under section 64A(1)(b) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, the six-month period begins when evidence which the prosecutor thinks sufficient to justify proceedings comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge. Applying Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council, the inquiry is not limited to whether there is a prima facie case. It includes whether prosecution is justified, including in the public interest.

3. The test for issuing a fixed penalty notice under regulation 11(1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 is different. It asks whether the authorised person reasonably believes that an offence has been committed. The same police officers’ involvement as authorised persons and prosecutors did not merge the two statutory questions.

4. Regulation 11(4) prevented proceedings before expiry of the 28-day payment period and prevented conviction if the penalty was paid. Until non-payment was known, the evidence could not be sufficient to justify prosecution. Even using the first notice as the starting point, the period expired on 14 March 2021, so proceedings issued or posted in August 2021 were timely.

5. Alternatively, the charge sheet was an official document stating an issue date of 11 August 2021. Under Brown v DPP, a written charge is issued when completed in the required form. Under Young v Director of Public Prosecutions, the stated date was admissible evidence and required no further proof absent a challenge supported by contrary evidence. No such challenge was made.

6. The court therefore found against the claimant on both grounds. It considered Ground 1 unnecessary after deciding Ground 2, but determined it in the alternative.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: The claimant was convicted and fined £200 on 26 April 2022. District Judge Snow refused to state a case, giving written reasons dated 6 September 2022.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission for judicial review was granted on 12 April 2023. The Divisional Court determined the substantive limitation issue and dismissed the claim.