Trial of summary offences in the Crown Court

21 Nov 2013

In R v Myers, 21 November 2013 (extempore), the Divisional Court (Pitchford LJ, Nicola Davies J) reiterated that there is no power to lay an information outside the six-month time-limit (section 127 MCA 1980).

The power discussed in the Scunthorpe Justices case is limited to cases where there is an amendment  to an existing information (section123 MCA 1980.) It also held that, on the facts, an offence of wasting police time did not constitute “the same misdoing” as an offence of perverting the course of justice.

The Applicant had faced an allegation of perverting the course of justice arising from a speeding offence. The prosecution alleged that he had gone to some lengths to cover-up the offence and to deceive the police. However, accepting his plea to an offence of wasting police time, it accepted that his wrongdoing was limited to not providing the police with sufficient information about the driver.

The prosecution purported to achieve this resolution by laying an information outside of the six-month time limit. The Applicant pleaded guilty. There was in fact an extant information alleging an offence under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, but no application to amend was made. The information preferred was a fresh one.

The Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. However, because the judge had sat as a District Judge to hear the fresh information, the correct appeal route was to the Administrative Court. The Court of Appeal reconstituted itself accordingly. It accepted the Applicant’s argument that the error in his case was jurisdictional (as opposed to procedural). There had been no power to hear the information because it was out-of-time. The proceedings were a nullity and the conviction was quashed. The Court added that in its view the admitted misdoing was fundamentally different from the original allegation, such that applying Scunthorpe principles the result would likely have been the same.

The Applicant was represented by Garden Court North Chambers’ Matthew Stanbury, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals.

Share this

Chambers news

Chambers news

Supreme Court allows appeal and settles law relating to interest accruing on non-payment of confiscation orders and whether or not interest impacts on default term

Pete Weatherby QC and Matthew Stanbury succeed before the Supreme Court in R (Gene Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice.

Chambers news

Peter Hodson – Happy Retirement

After 23 years at the Bar, most of them spent at Garden Court North Chambers, Peter Hodson has decided to retire from practice.

Chambers news

No case to answer in a prosecution alleging the murder of a baby by his parents and leave to appeal refused to the prosecution by the Court of Appeal

Garden Court North Chambers' Pete Weatherby QC and Nina Grahame represented C, the father of the baby.

Chambers news

DWP unlawfully delayed paying carer benefits for 4 years

Tom Royston, a barrister at Garden Court North Chambers, appeared in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Fileccia [2017] EWCA Civ 1907.

Sign up to our mailing list

Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.

Sign up