Luton Borough Council v Altavon Luton Ltd & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of District Judge Dodd at the Luton Magistrates' Court dated 9 August 2018. On 15 November 2017, informations were laid against three defendants: Company A, Defendant, and Appellee, alleging offences committed on 16 May 2017. The allegations concerned control and/or management of a house in multiple occupation ("HMO") at 38 Main Street, The City, contrary to regulations under the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 and the Housing Act 2004.

The respondents contended that the informations were laid outside the six-month statutory time limit under section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, which requires that an information be laid within six months from the time the offence was committed or the matter of complaint arose. The District Judge found that the offences were continuing offences and that the time limit ran from when the local authority became aware of the offences, which was in April 2017, thus rendering the informations laid on 15 November 2017 out of time. The appellant challenged this finding by way of case stated, posing specific legal questions to the High Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Did the District Judge wrongly direct herself on the law regarding the nature of a "continuing offence" and the special nature of that type of offence, particularly in relation to the daily offence being repeated where there is an unlicensed house?
2. Did the District Judge err in not allowing the photographs to be admitted in legal argument, and was the decision Wednesbury unreasonable?
3. By determining she could not be sure if the visit was on 15 or 16 May, did the District Judge wrongly direct herself in ruling on questions of fact which should have been determined at trial rather than limiting her ruling to a matter of law as to whether the limitation was applied correctly?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The offences were continuing offences until the date the officer entered and inspected the property on 16 May 2017.
• The evidential detail necessary to lay informations for regulatory offences was only available after the inspection on 16 May 2017; prior knowledge was incomplete and insufficient.
• The continuing nature of the offence aligns with precedent that daily breaches constitute fresh offences, supporting the timing of the information laying.
• The judge accepted that the photographs were dated 16 May 2017, supporting the appellant's case on the date of the offence.

Respondents' Arguments

• The offences were continuing but the matter of complaint arose when the local authority first became aware of the offences, in April or at the latest 12 May 2017.
• Reliance on authority where similar time limit provisions were applied, indicating that the complaint must be laid within six months of the matter arising, not when the case crystallised.
• If uncertainty exists regarding dates of knowledge, the criminal standard of proof applies, requiring the prosecution to prove timing beyond reasonable doubt.
• The appellant’s position is analogous to a case where delay in laying complaint was held to render proceedings a nullity.
• Noted procedural irregularities and late additions of parties in the proceedings, suggesting a lack of diligence by the appellant.

Third Respondent's Arguments

• Adopted the submissions of the second respondent.
• Raised uncertainty about the exact date of the photographs and whether offences were continuing or hybrid in nature.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the nature of the offences as continuing, occurring daily until the entry and inspection of the property on 16 May 2017. It accepted the evidence that the photographs taken by the officer were date-stamped 16 May 2017, which was the date the appellant contended the offences occurred for limitation purposes under section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980.

The court reasoned that although the local authority had knowledge of the offences prior to 16 May 2017, that knowledge was incomplete and insufficient to lay informations, particularly regarding regulatory breaches requiring inspection. The court distinguished the precedent relied on by respondents, noting the differing factual and procedural context.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the informations laid on 15 November 2017 were within the six-month limitation period, as the offences were continuing until 16 May 2017. The court found that the District Judge had erred in her legal direction on the timing of the limitation period and in her treatment of the photographs and factual findings.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal, set aside the order of the District Judge, and reinstated the informations against each of the respondents.

The direct effect is that the prosecution proceedings may continue as the informations were not time-barred. No new precedent was established, but the decision clarifies the application of section 127 limitation periods to continuing offences, emphasizing the importance of the date when the offence ceases or is fully ascertainable for limitation purposes.

Regarding costs, the court ordered no order as to costs, taking into account the circumstances of the parties and procedural history.