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.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- 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.