Debbie Hicks, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates' Court
[2023] EWHC 1090 (Admin)
Andreas Michli, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates Court
12 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 559 (Admin)
High Court
Someone was charged for breaking COVID rules. They argued the charge was too late. The court decided the charge wasn't too late because the time limit didn't start until after a grace period for paying a fine had ended and because the official document stating the date of the charge was considered accurate without further evidence.
Key Facts
- •Claimant hosted a gathering exceeding 15 people, violating COVID-19 lockdown regulations on February 14, 2021.
- •A Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) was issued on February 14, 2021, and a second, correctly authorized FPN was issued on April 26, 2021.
- •Claimant did not pay the FPN.
- •A Single Justice Procedure Notice charging the claimant was posted on August 20, 2021 (issued August 11, 2021).
- •Claimant pleaded not guilty.
- •Magistrates initially adjourned the statute-barred argument, later finding the prosecution timely.
- •Claimant sought judicial review of the refusal to state a case, arguing the prosecution was statute-barred.
Legal Principles
Magistrates' courts cannot try an information unless it is laid within 6 months of the offence (Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s. 127), unless an exception applies.
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s. 127
For offences under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, prosecutions can occur within 3 years of the offence or 6 months from when sufficient evidence comes to the prosecutor's knowledge (Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, s. 64A). The prosecutor's decision on sufficient evidence requires careful consideration of public interest, not just a prima facie case.
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, s. 64A; Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council [2014] EWHC 4820 (Admin); R v Woodward [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin)
Under the 2020 Regulations, no proceedings can be taken within 28 days of issuing a FPN; conviction is impossible if the FPN is paid within 28 days.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020, reg. 11(4)
A written charge is issued when the document is completed, not just when posted (Brown v DPP [2019] EWHC 798 (Admin)).
Brown v DPP [2019] EWHC 798 (Admin)
If magistrates doubt the date of an information, impacting timeliness, they should decline jurisdiction; the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
Atkinson v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] EWHC 1457 (Admin)
A written charge is a public document and admissible evidence for its stated issue date; however, this can be challenged with other evidence.
Young v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] EWHC 976 (Admin)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The prosecution was brought in time under both grounds of appeal. The six-month limitation period under s.64A of the 1984 Act did not begin until after the 28-day period for FPN payment had expired. Furthermore, the issue date of the Charge Sheet (11 August 2021), being a public document, was sufficient to prove the prosecution was timely without contrary evidence presented.