Director of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski [2002] EWHC 1380 (Admin) (28 June 2002)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Dziurzynski [2002] EWHC 1380 (Admin) (28 June 2002)

The employees of B&K Universal Group Ltd, as described in the charge, did not constitute a close knit, definable group; the charge was bad for duplicity and failed to identify the complainants, and the District Judge was entitled to find there was no case to answer.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1380 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Joseph Dominic Dziurzynski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Duplicity in Charges, Definition of 'person' in Statute, Close Knit Definable Group, Harassment Offences
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Duplicity in Charges Definition of 'person' in Statute Close Knit Definable Group Harassment Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Joseph Dominic Dziurzynski

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Divisional Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a charge alleging harassment of 'the employees of B&K' was bad for duplicity
  2. 2 Whether the employees of B&K constitute a close knit definable group
  3. 3 Whether the District Judge erred in law in finding no case to answer

Ratio Decidendi

The employees of B&K Universal Group Ltd, as described in the charge, did not constitute a close knit, definable group; the charge was bad for duplicity and failed to identify the complainants, and the District Judge was entitled to find there was no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for costs out of central funds in favour of the respondent