References: [1981] TRL 126 DC, (1982) 90 ITSA MR 112
Coram: McNeil J
The trading standards officer of the relevant authority and who wished to bring the complaint had been unsure as to the identity of the offender, because he was dealing with a corporate defendant and a number of possible candidates as the proposed defendant. McNeil J considered what was meant by ‘discovery’ in connection with time limits: ‘I think it is sufficient for the purposes of this case, to say that the word ‘discovery’ means no more in this context than all the faxed material to found the relevant charge under the Act were disclosed to the appropriate officer. The word ‘discovery’ here does not import any investigation by the officer. It is simply his knowledge from disclosure to him in some way, of the material facts which would found the offence.’
This case is cited by:
- Adopted – Tesco Stores Ltd -v- London Borough of Harrow Admn (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2919 (Admin))
The court considered at what point the knowledge of the prosecuting authorities became sufficient to begin time running on a prosecution: ‘The question to ask in these circumstances is whether the facts disclosed, objectively considered, would have . . - Cited – Donnachie, Regina (on the Application of) -v- Cardiff Magistrates’ Court Admn (Times 22-Aug-07, Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1846 (Admin))
The defendant appealed refusal of the district judge to state a case on the basis of having no jurisdiction.
Held: Where the magistrate is acting not as an Examining Magistrate, but is deciding a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction, his . .