Matthew Wright, R (on the application of) v Medway Magistrates' Court

A statutory body's power to prosecute depends on the statute that creates it. Where that statute expressly grants a prosecution power, the body has no separate implied power to prosecute beyond the statutory conditions. Section 37(1) of the Environment Act 1995 permits the Environment Agency to prosecute any kind of offence where, in its opinion, the prosecution is capable of facilitating, or is conducive or incidental to, one or more of its functions.

Anonymity is a strict exception to open justice. A person who has been charged does not ordinarily have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the charge merely because they challenge the prosecutor's authority. Any restriction on reporting must be strictly necessary and supported by clear and cogent evidence.

The Environment Agency applied to Medway Magistrates' Court for summonses charging Matthew Wright and others with conspiracy to defraud. The alleged conspiracy involved manipulating wastewater monitoring to conceal pollution. The Agency relied on section 37(1) of the Environment Act 1995 as authority to prosecute.

The magistrates' court issued the summons against Mr Wright. He sought judicial review, arguing that section 37 did not authorise prosecution for common-law offences or offences outside environmental legislation. He also sought anonymity. The Agency opposed permission for judicial review and applied to discharge an interim anonymity and reporting restriction order. The Divisional Court considered whether the Agency had power to prosecute and whether anonymity could be continued.

1. Permission for judicial review was refused. A statutory corporation has no general common-law power to prosecute outside the authority conferred by its constituting statute. Where the statute expressly addresses prosecution, no further implied power exists beyond that provision's scope. The court distinguished R v Rollins [2010] UKSC 39, which concerned a company whose constitutional documents did not restrict its private prosecution power, rather than a statutory body.

2. Section 37(1) uses the hanging phrase conjunctively with the preceding provision. It therefore authorises the Agency to prosecute for any offence, including a common-law or inchoate offence, where the prosecution is capable of facilitating, or is conducive or incidental to, any Agency function and the Agency holds that opinion. The section is not limited to environmental statutory offences. The court rejected the proposed restriction to substantive offences: the statutory words impose no such limit, and that reading would produce anomalous distinctions between principal and secondary offenders.

3. The alleged conspiracy was sufficiently connected to the Agency's functions. Prosecuting serious fraud said to have manipulated wastewater monitoring could prevent continued pollution, deter similar conduct and support recovery of benefits or compensation. The Agency could therefore prosecute the alleged conspiracy to defraud under section 37(1).

4. The open justice principle applies to civil and criminal proceedings, including the reporting of names. A restriction is justified only exceptionally, where strictly necessary on clear and cogent evidence. The court applied the two-stage Article 8 inquiry described in ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5, but held that the case did not establish a general right to anonymity before charge or determine open justice questions. Mr Wright had been charged; challenging the Agency's authority did not restore the position of a person merely under investigation. His evidence did not establish an Article 8 privacy right of sufficient weight or a necessity to restrict reporting. The anonymity order was set aside.

5. The claimant had breached his continuing duty of candour by failing to tell the court that the criminal hearing had been adjourned. The Agency had also breached its duty by not promptly reporting the change. The court would not have relied on the claimant's breach to discharge an otherwise necessary order in those circumstances. It refused permission and discharged the anonymity order, permitting full reporting.

1. Medway Magistrates' Court: issued summonses on the Environment Agency's application to prosecute for conspiracy to defraud.
2. High Court (Administrative Court, Divisional Court): refused permission to apply for judicial review of the summons and set aside the interim anonymity order.