Woodward & Ors, R. v

Woodward & Ors, R. v

The relevant date for the time limit under section 31(1)(b) is when the CPS prosecutor decided there was sufficient evidence to justify proceedings, not when the FSA gathered the evidence. The July 2016 certificates were valid and could be relied upon. The District Judge erred in law by focusing on the FSA's knowledge and by refusing to consider the later certificates and other evidence. The prosecution was commenced in time.

Parties
Appellant: R; Respondent: Robert Woodward; Respondent: William Woodward; Respondent: Kabeer Hussein; Respondent: Kazam Hussein; Respondent: Artur Lewandowski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Time Limits for Prosecution, Animal Welfare Act 2006, Summary Offences, Prosecutor's Certificate, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Administrative Law Time Limits for Prosecution Animal Welfare Act 2006 Summary Offences Prosecutor's Certificate Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Appellant

Robert Woodward

Respondent

William Woodward

Respondent

Kabeer Hussein

Respondent

Kazam Hussein

Respondent

Artur Lewandowski

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution was commenced within the statutory time limits under section 31 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the prosecutor's certificate was valid
  3. 3 Whether the magistrates’ court erred in law in dismissing the proceedings as out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The relevant date for the time limit under section 31(1)(b) is when the CPS prosecutor decided there was sufficient evidence to justify proceedings, not when the FSA gathered the evidence. The July 2016 certificates were valid and could be relied upon. The District Judge erred in law by focusing on the FSA's knowledge and by refusing to consider the later certificates and other evidence. The prosecution was commenced in time.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Quash the determination of District Judge Lower to dismiss the proceedings
  • Remit the matter to the magistrates’ court with a direction to refuse the application to dismiss the proceedings