Analysis of Timeliness of Prosecution under COVID-19 Regulations in Andreas Michli Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 559 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The recent case of Andreas Michli, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates Court represents a nuanced judicial review of the administrative decisions made by the magistrates court concerning the timely prosecution of offences relating to Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) regulations. This article will dissect the legal principles and the reasoning applied by the court when addressing the central issues presented by the case.

Key Facts

The case centers around the claimant, Andreas Michli, who hosted a gathering in violation of COVID-19 restrictions, prompting a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) by the police, which was not paid, and later prosecution. The crux of the case involves the timeliness of the prosecution, with the claimant arguing the statutory time limit had expired, making the prosecution statute-barred. The Magistrates’ Court, and subsequently the High Court, analyzed whether the prosecution had commenced within the legally prescribed timeframe.

Several legal principles are key to understanding the court’s analysis:

  1. Time Limits for Prosecutions: The claimant’s fundamental argument rested on Section 127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 and Section 64A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Section 127 requires informations to be laid within six months from the time the offence was committed. However, Section 64A extends this limit to three years from the offence date, or six months from when significant evidence comes to the prosecutor’s knowledge, whichever is later.

  2. Issuance of Fixed Penalty Notices: The court analyzed the effect of Fixed Penalty Notices on the timeline for prosecutions, particularly focusing on Regulation 11 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020. This regulation outlines the implications of a Fixed Penalty Notice on subsequent prosecution timelines.

  3. Date of Knowledge of Sufficient Evidence: The court considered the case law set out in Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council [2014] EWHC 4820 (Admin) and R v Woodward [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin), which dictate when the date of knowledge of evidence begins. Key to this is differentiating the belief that an offence has been committed from when there is sufficient evidence justifying a prosecution.

  4. Admissibility of Issue Date as Evidential Fact: Reliance on the issue date stated on the Charge Sheet, a public document, as sufficient evidence for issuing within the statutory time frame was informed by case law such as Brown v DPP [2019] EWHC 798 (Admin) and Young v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] EWHC 976 (Admin).

Outcomes

The court analyzed and dismissed the two grounds of appeal put forth by the claimant. Firstly, on Ground 2, the court found that the prosecutor did not have sufficient evidence to justify the proceedings until the expiration of the 28-day period permitted for paying the FPN, as stipulated by Regulation 11(4). Thus, time under Section 64A(1)(b) did not commence until after this period, making the prosecution timely.

Secondly, on Ground 1, the court held that the official document’s (Charge Sheet) stated issue date was admissible as per Young v DPP. As there was no evidence contradicting this date and no challenge was raised by the claimant at any stage, this date had to be accepted.

Conclusion

In Andreas Michli, R (on the application of) v Westminster Magistrates Court, the High Court upheld the magistrates’ decision that the prosecution was not statute-barred, as it was initiated within the requisite timeframe following the expiration of the period given for the payment of the Fixed Penalty Notice. The critical legal principle highlighted is the interpretation of the statutory time limit concerning the Fixed Penalty Notices and sufficient evidence justifying prosecution. This case emphasizes the necessity for the prosecuting authority to undertake careful consideration when timing their actions, especially in the context of ongoing restrictions and law enforcement’s response to rule violations during a pandemic.