Director of Public Prosecutions v Ryan Jackson

For a statutory period expressed to run from, after or of a specified date, that date is excluded from the calculation unless the statutory wording clearly requires inclusion. There is no relevant distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, or between from and after. Wording such as starting with is inclusionary. Where the excluded starting date is followed by a period measured in months, the period expires on the corresponding date in the later month. These principles applied to the six-month period under section 39A(4)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: a witness statement made on 27 September permitted proceedings until 27 March, so proceedings issued on that date were in time.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by case stated from a decision of St Albans Magistrates’ Court dated 5 February 2025. The Magistrates concluded that a prosecution for common assault in a domestic abuse case had been commenced one day late and that they had no jurisdiction to hear it.

Section 39A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 permits proceedings to be commenced within six months from the first date on which the statutory witness-statement or video-interview condition is met. The complainant made her witness statement on 27 September 2023, and the postal requisition was issued on 27 March 2024. The central question was whether the statement date was included or excluded when calculating the six-month period.

Appeal allowed. The case was remitted to the Magistrates for trial.

1. Section 39A(4)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 creates a special limitation period for qualifying domestic-abuse prosecutions. The relevant period is six months from the first date on which the condition in section 39A(2) or section 39A(3) is met.

2. The court adopted the established exclusionary rule. Where legislation provides that an act must be done within a period expressed by reference to from, after or of a specified date, the specified date is excluded. The rule applies equally in criminal and civil contexts. There is no practical difference between from and after.

3. The court distinguished inclusionary wording such as starting with. Where that phrase is used, the specified date is included in the calculation.

4. Where the excluded starting date is followed by a period measured in months, the corresponding date rule applies. Time begins on the day after the specified date and expires on the corresponding day in the later month.

5. Applying those principles, 27 September 2023 was excluded. The six-month period therefore expired on 27 March 2024. The Magistrates’ calculation, which treated time as beginning on 27 September and expiring on 26 March, was erroneous. The proceedings were brought in time, on the last permissible day.

• St Albans Magistrates’ Court — On 5 February 2025, held that the prosecution was one day late and that there was no jurisdiction to hear it.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division), Divisional Court — Appeal by case stated allowed. The Magistrates’ answer was corrected and the case remitted for trial.