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 the Act once a suitably qualified CPS employee has knowledge of ‘…evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings’, and the case was not time barred.
Gross LJ, Andrews J
[2016] EWHC 2531 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 530
Bailii, WLRD
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4(1), Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 127(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
Distinguished – Donnachie, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 16-Mar-2009
A prosecutor for the purposes of the Trade Descriptions Act was the council and not an individual employee. . .
Cited – RSPCA v Johnson Admn 16-Oct-2009
Appeal by the RSPCA by way of case stated from a decision refusing to hear an information laid by the Society on the basis that it was out of time. The defendant was a horse owner accused of causing suffering in his horse.
Held: Pill LJ said: . .
Cited – Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council Admn 15-Dec-2014
This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Warwickshire Justices to convict the appellant on a number of counts of contraventions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Animals
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570265
