RSPCA v Johnson [2009] EWHC 2702 (Admin) – S 127(1) MCA – s 31(1) AWA.
1) s 31 AWA certificate can be signed by individual on behalf of a corporation.
- use of word “possession” in a s 31 certificate rather than “knowledge” is not a defect.
2) certificate as to date of prosecutor’s knowledge conclusive unless abuse of process.
- delay resulting from P making careful enquiries is not an abuse of process.
3) no principle of law that time begins to run when P’s employee has knowledge.
- knowledge involves consideration by expert mind whether sufficient evidence to prosecute.
4) considerable burden on D to show abuse of process.
- burden on D not discharged solely because P gave wrong date in certificate.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- Brookes v Club Continental Ltd (1982) 90 ITSA MR 112 - S 19(1) TDA.
- time limit. - "discovery"of the offence by the prosecutor. - time runs from P's discovery of all the facts material to found the charge. - R (Donnachie) v Cardiff Magistrates' Court [2007] EWHC 1846 (Admin) - Ss 1(1)(a) and 19(1) TDA.
- false odometer reading. - statutory time limit - informations laid out of time. 1) a case stated can lie from the examining magistrate's decision at a committal hearing. 2) offence of "applying" is committed at time odometer is altered. 3) "the prosecutor", in s 19 TDA, is the prosecuting authority not the informant. - Letherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council [2014] EWHC 4820 (Admin) – S 31(1) AWA – s 127(1) MCA - (s 101 LGA).
1) decision under s 31 AWA as to time limit is not whether there is a prima facie case or is within 6 months of P concluding investigations but whether evidence is sufficient to justify prosecution. 2) correspondence was not conclusive as to when P had the requisite knowledge to prosecute. 3) certificate under s 31 may be issued after challenge has been made as to compliance with the statutory time limit. 4) magistrates may accept certificate under s 31(2) but should order disclosure of officer’s report giving rise to it. 5) P is entitled to determine at what level of seniority a decision to prosecute is made. - although the “prosecutor” may be a collective body, it is the individual with delegated responsibility for deciding whether to prosecute whose thoughts and beliefs are relevant under s 31(1)(b) AWA.