Chesterfield Poultry Ltd v Sheffield Magistrates Court

Chesterfield Poultry Ltd v Sheffield Magistrates Court

A valid prosecutor’s certificate, not defective on its face and not fraudulent, is conclusive evidence of the relevant date for the purpose of the statutory time limit. The court cannot go behind the certificate by reference to extraneous evidence. The proceedings were commenced in time and there was no abuse of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Chesterfield Poultry Limited; Defendant: Sheffield Magistrates Court; Interested Party: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Time Limits for Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Summary Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Administrative Law Time Limits for Prosecution Abuse of Process Judicial Review Summary Criminal Proceedings

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chesterfield Poultry Limited

Claimant

Sheffield Magistrates Court

Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether criminal proceedings were commenced out of time under section 41 of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
  2. 2 Whether the prosecutor's certificate is conclusive evidence of the relevant date for time limits
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

A valid prosecutor’s certificate, not defective on its face and not fraudulent, is conclusive evidence of the relevant date for the purpose of the statutory time limit. The court cannot go behind the certificate by reference to extraneous evidence. The proceedings were commenced in time and there was no abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review dismissed
  • Claimant to pay the Interested Party’s costs of the claim for judicial review in the sum of £12,202