LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM v ARGOS LIMITED

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM v ARGOS LIMITED

The information complied with CrimPR 7.2(3)(b)(i) for summary-only offences governed by section 127 MCA 1980; non-compliance with this rule does not render a summons a nullity. RESA regime did not apply to the offence charged, and reliance on Primary Authority advice did not constitute an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings.

Parties
Prosecutor: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; Defendant: Argos Limited; Defendant: Romford Magistrates’ Court; Interested Party: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal by Case Stated and Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judicial review application refused.
Legal Topics
Summons Validity, Abuse of Process, Statutory Interpretation, Precedent, Criminal Procedure Rules, Time Limits for Prosecution, Primary Authority Regime
Criminal Law Administrative Law Procedural Law Summons Validity Abuse of Process Statutory Interpretation Precedent Criminal Procedure Rules +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Prosecutor

Argos Limited

Defendant

Romford Magistrates’ Court

Defendant

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal by Case Stated and Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for a summons complied with Criminal Procedure Rule 7.2(3)(b)(i)
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with CrimPR 7.2(3)(b)(i) renders the summons a nullity
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process due to reliance on Primary Authority advice

Ratio Decidendi

The information complied with CrimPR 7.2(3)(b)(i) for summary-only offences governed by section 127 MCA 1980; non-compliance with this rule does not render a summons a nullity. RESA regime did not apply to the offence charged, and reliance on Primary Authority advice did not constitute an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judicial review application refused.

Orders

  • The judge's questions answered as explained in the judgment.
  • Proceedings to return to the magistrates’ court for trial.