The claimant appealed against the refusal of the return of money seized from him by the respondent’s officers under the 2002 Act. The magistrates had declined jurisdiction saying that the complaint was out of time. The claimant said that his request was neither a complaint nor an information so as to fall foul of the … Continue reading Davis v Leicestershire Constabulary: Admn 18 Jul 2012
Appeal from finding that allegations were not out of time. Judges: Lady Justice Thirlwall Mr Justice Jeremy Baker Citations: [2022] EWHC 842 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes:
Judges: Gross LJ, Sweeney J Citations: [2018] EWHC 1044 (Admin), [2018] WLR(D) 276, [2018] 2 Cr App R 18, [2018] LLR 447, [2018] 1 WLR 3792, [2018] Crim LR 756 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes:
The defendant argued that the written charge in the case had not been issued within the necessary time period. He said that it had not been issued until it was in some way publicly available. The respondent argued that the requirement was satisfied at the point where the relevant prosecutor determined to issue it. The … Continue reading Brown v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 2 Apr 2019
The defendants appealed by case stated from convictions under the 2006 Act arising from the treatment of cows including at a slaughterhouse. Arguments were put that the prosecution was time barred. Held: The court recognsed the limited role of the investigators and the CPS who would eventually institute proceedings. Time started running under s.31(1)(b) of … Continue reading Riley and Others v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 18 Oct 2016
The complaint had been laid before Magistrates before the expiration of the time limit, but was only considered and the summons issued after the time limit. The House also considered the power of delegation where a justice of the peace or the clerk did not personally receive or consider the information in question. Held: The … Continue reading Regina v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Hill and others: HL 1993
The defendant had seized a dog after a biting incident. They sought its destruction. The owner said that they were out of time. The court was asked whether the time ran from the biting incident or the seizure.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. . .