Brown v Director of Public Prosecutions

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted on 17 August 2018 by the Magistrates' Court of a speeding offence contrary to a Local Traffic Order and statutory provisions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The Appellant admitted the facts but appealed on the basis that the written charge was not "issued" within the six-month limitation period prescribed by Section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The appeal arose from a case stated by the Magistrates, who posed two questions concerning the timing and meaning of the "issue" of the written charge and the Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN). The relevant facts include the detection of the speeding offence on 19 November 2017, the subsequent administrative processing of the offence, and the production of the written charge and SJPN on 21 April 2018, with posting occurring on 23 May 2018. The single issue on appeal concerned the interpretation of the limitation period in relation to the timing of issuing the written charge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a written charge is "issued" to the defendant when the relevant prosecutor determines to issue it.
2. Whether the written charge and Single Justice Procedure Notice were issued to the defendant on 21 April 2018.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The written charge cannot be considered "issued" until it is in the public domain, meaning it has left the prosecutor's office and is ready for service.
• Authorising the written charge earlier as a "holding tactic" to later issue it with the SJPN circumvents the six-month limitation period.
• Issue and service should be considered as a single process, and the written charge must be ready for service to be "issued".
• Risk of delay between issue and service frustrates the statutory intention, and abuse of process is not an adequate remedy for such delay.
• Relied on precedent emphasizing the need for the information to be made available to the court or justice within the limitation period.

Respondent's Arguments

• "Issuing" a written charge occurs when the prosecutor produces the document in a form ready for service, distinct from the act of service itself.
• The SJPN and written charge must be issued simultaneously within six months, but issue and service are separate steps.
• It is a question of fact whether the written charge has been produced and issued, and the prosecutor bears the burden of proof to show issue occurred within time.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework governing the institution of summary criminal proceedings, noting the replacement of the former two-stage process (laying of complaint followed by issue by the court) with a single-step process where the prosecutor issues a written charge and SJPN simultaneously. The court emphasised that "issuing" and "serving" are distinct steps under the Criminal Procedure Rules and section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The court rejected the Appellant's submission that issuing requires the written charge to be in the public domain or served. Instead, the court held that issuing occurs when the written charge document is completed in its final form, ready for service, within the statutory six-month period. The court found that the Magistrates erred in stating that issue occurs at the moment the prosecutor decides to issue but agreed that issue does not require service or posting.

The court also acknowledged the risk of delay between issue and service but noted that abuse of process provides the appropriate remedy for unjustified delays. The court concluded that the written charge and SJPN were properly issued on 21 April 2018, within the limitation period, and that the conviction could stand.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, holding that a written charge is "issued" when the prosecutor completes the document in its final form, ready for service, within the statutory six-month limitation period. The court clarified that issuing and service are separate legal steps and that issue does not require the charge to be served or placed in the public domain at the moment of issue.

The direct effect is that the Appellant's conviction stands. The court did not set a new precedent regarding delay between issue and service beyond reaffirming that abuse of process is the remedy for unjustified delay. Prosecutors are advised to ensure both issue and service occur within six months to avoid procedural challenges.