Riley & Ors v Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

Riley & Ors v Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

The prosecution was not time-barred because the CPS, not the FSA, is the prosecutor for the purposes of s.31 Animal Welfare Act 2006; time runs from the CPS's knowledge of sufficient evidence. Individual partners cannot be criminally liable under s.4(2) without proof of mens rea and knowledge of circumstances; strict liability does not apply. There was no abuse of process. The judge was entitled to refuse a pre-trial ruling on 'unnecessary suffering' but should have managed the case to require clarification. Evidence of the alleged push was admissible.

Parties
Appellant: Stephen Riley; Appellant: Geoff Riley; Appellant: Michael Riley; Appellant: Kevin Riley; Respondent: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal of Stephen Riley dismissed; appeals of Geoff Riley, Michael Riley, and Kevin Riley allowed.
Legal Topics
Time Bar for Prosecution, Criminal Liability of Partners, Abuse of Process, Admissibility of Evidence, Case Management in Summary Proceedings
Criminal Law Animal Welfare Partnership Law Time Bar for Prosecution Criminal Liability of Partners Abuse of Process Admissibility of Evidence Case Management in Summary Proceedings

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Riley

Appellant

Geoff Riley

Appellant

Michael Riley

Appellant

Kevin Riley

Appellant

Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution was time-barred under s.31 Animal Welfare Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether individual partners can be prosecuted for acts of another partner under s.4(2) Animal Welfare Act 2006
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution was not time-barred because the CPS, not the FSA, is the prosecutor for the purposes of s.31 Animal Welfare Act 2006; time runs from the CPS's knowledge of sufficient evidence. Individual partners cannot be criminally liable under s.4(2) without proof of mens rea and knowledge of circumstances; strict liability does not apply. There was no abuse of process. The judge was entitled to refuse a pre-trial ruling on 'unnecessary suffering' but should have managed the case to require clarification. Evidence of the alleged push was admissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal of Stephen Riley dismissed; appeals of Geoff Riley, Michael Riley, and Kevin Riley allowed.

Orders

  • Proceedings against Geoff Riley, Michael Riley, and Kevin Riley terminated.
  • No impediment to trial proceeding against Stephen Riley.