The court considered how to apply the time limits in the section. There was a system for automatic electronic communication between the police and the court office. The six month time limit expired on the 16th December. The documents served on the defendant showed an ‘information date’ of 10th December, but the summons was dated the 9th January. It transpired that the information date referred to the first date upon which any data relating to the case were entered on the computer. That data may only have been the bare bones of the incident in question for example the offence and the date and not sufficient to amount to an information. The entry could then have been amended at any time thereafter without any record being made of such amendment. Once the police were satisfied that the information was complete, the entry would have been ‘validated’. It was only when the details had been ‘validated’ that the computer at the court would generate the summons. The defendant argued for abuse of process.
Held: The issue was really one of jurisdiction. It was for the prosecutor to prove compliance,
Auld LJ said: ‘The data giving rise to the printing of the summons in the magistrates’ court shortly after the effluxion of the time limit may or may not have been in sufficient form at the initial data entry date or over the few days thereafter before the effluxion of that limit.’ and ‘It may be that the computer can be programmed so as to make readily retrievable any entries and their dates between the initial entry date and that of printing of the summons. Or it may be that it could be programmed so that there is no communication of entries on the police system to the magistrates’ court terminals until validation, so that the date of validation would patently be the date of the laying of the information before the magistrates.’
Judges:
Auld LJ
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 1457 (Admin), [2005] 1 WLR 96
Links:
Statutes:
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 127
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Lloyd v Young Admn 1963
There had been doubt on the face of the summons as to the date of the laying of the information.
Held: The court concluded on the evidence that the Justices were entitled to dismiss the information because of the doubts of the date. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Rockall v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 22-Mar-2007
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the Act, saying that the proceedings had been issued late. The issue was the calculation of the date when proceedings were begun.
Held: There was no justification for reading the wording of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.198518