Chesterfield Poultry Ltd v Sheffield Magistrates Court [2019] EWHC 2953 (Admin), [2020] 1 WLR 499

The issue in the application for judicial review was whether proceedings against the claimant were commenced out of time, or whether they should be stayed as an abuse of process.

The claimant operates a slaughterhouse approved by the FSA. The CPS commenced proceedings on 5th January 2018 by the issue of a requisition for breaches of regulations 30(1)(c) and 30(1)(g) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. The four charges arose from the fact that 5644 chickens were found dead on 13th September 2016 as a result of what was alleged to be inadequate ventilation.

The issue was whether proceedings were commenced within the period allowed by s41 of the Regulations, which provides an exception to the general rule that summary proceedings must be commenced within 6 months. Section 41 provides a time limit of 3 years if the information is laid within 6 months of the date on which the prosecutor thinks there is sufficient evidence to justify proceedings. Whether it is laid within this 6 month period can be proved by the issue of a certificate, which is what the CPS did in this case.

The claimant argued there was sufficient evidence in March 2017 and applied to the Magistrates’ Court for a ruling that the court had no jurisdiction. The District Judge ruled that the prosecutor’s certificate complied with s41 and was conclusive evidence of the relevant date. She also went on to say that despite a disappointing lack of progress for four months after receipt of papers by the CPS, the delay would not prevent a fair trial. The court had jurisdiction, and the proceedings should not be stayed.

The lawfulness of the decision was made on four grounds. The main focus involved a challenge to the conclusive nature of the prosecutor’s certificate.

Held: the certificate contained no error on its face and was therefore conclusive evidence that the relevant date was 8th November 2017. The conclusion that the delay did not prevent a fair trial was a conclusion the District Judge was entitled to reach. Abuse of process may have a role to play in an appropriate case. For example, a prosecutor’s failure to apply his mind to the sufficiency of the evidence led to a delay impacting on the fairness of proceedings. The court must have in mind that the conclusive evidence provisions must not be manipulated to deprive a defendant of the benefit of a time-bar defence and are not a “charter for paper-shuffling”. Abuse of process is and should remain a separate question concerned with the fairness of the procedure and of the trial.

The claim for judicial review was dismissed.