R v Woodward [2017] EWHC 1008 (Admin) – S 31 AWA.
- animal welfare — time limits for prosecutions — meaning of “prosecutor”.
1) the “prosecutor” in s 31 AWA was the individual responsible for deciding whether to prosecute.
2) the prosecutor’s decision under s 31(1)(b) is not whether there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case, but whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a prosecution.
3) defective certificate may be replaced by subsequent ones the validity of which must be considered on their face.
4) even if certificates unreliable, P may still prove, on the evidence, that prosecution brought in time.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- 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.