Prosecution time limits for summary offences.
Discussion
I'm after some guidance on the 6 month limit for summary offences, such as driving without due care & attention.
I understand that the information must be 'layed' before a court within 6 calender months (from the date of offence - I think?) for a prosecution to take place.
Does this mean that all the paperwork needs to land at a court or clerk of the court within 6 months of the offence so a summons can be generated, regardless as to whether the offender is aware or not? Or is it a simple case of when the prosecutor gives the nod for prosecution to go ahead?
What if the Police, or CPS or even criminal justice have the case papers/file for all of this time, and 6 months passes before a summons is generated?
Am i right in saying that paperwork will go Police --> CPS (for decision) --> Back to Police --> Criminal Justice People > Court? (assume this is a scenario which has to be taken to the CPS, rather than the Police just reporting the suspect for summons from the start)
Lastly, is there any form of policy or caselaw that examines unnecessary delays with regards prosecutions, more so for indictable offences, and if these unnecessary delays would form any abuse of process?
I understand that the information must be 'layed' before a court within 6 calender months (from the date of offence - I think?) for a prosecution to take place.
Does this mean that all the paperwork needs to land at a court or clerk of the court within 6 months of the offence so a summons can be generated, regardless as to whether the offender is aware or not? Or is it a simple case of when the prosecutor gives the nod for prosecution to go ahead?
What if the Police, or CPS or even criminal justice have the case papers/file for all of this time, and 6 months passes before a summons is generated?
Am i right in saying that paperwork will go Police --> CPS (for decision) --> Back to Police --> Criminal Justice People > Court? (assume this is a scenario which has to be taken to the CPS, rather than the Police just reporting the suspect for summons from the start)
Lastly, is there any form of policy or caselaw that examines unnecessary delays with regards prosecutions, more so for indictable offences, and if these unnecessary delays would form any abuse of process?
The CPS Guidance page answers many such questions:-
"Laying of the Information
Section 127 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states that for all summary offences the information must be laid within six calendar months of the commission of the offence, except where any other Act expressly provides otherwise.
The following points need to be borne in mind:
It is not necessary for the information to be personally received by a justice or by the clerk. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. In R v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex p B and Others [1988] Crim LR 842 it was held that an information could be laid by being input into a terminal at a police station of a computer system which was linked to the court, even though it was not printed out at the court end until later.
In computing the limitation period the day on which the offence was committed is not included.
So long as the information is laid within six months, the issue and service of the summons and the subsequent determination may all occur outside that period.
Laying an information within the six months' time limit before deciding whether or not to prosecute may result in the proceedings being stayed as an abuse of process; see R v Brentford Magistrates' Court ex parte Wong [1981] 1 All ER 884.
The six months' time limit applies to most summary road traffic offences, but statutory exceptions do occur. In particular:
Section 6 RTOA 1988."
So, the key step is that a magistrate or authorised member of court staff receives the information.
I am not sure, BTW, who you mean by "criminal justice people", unless you mean court staff.
"Laying of the Information
Section 127 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states that for all summary offences the information must be laid within six calendar months of the commission of the offence, except where any other Act expressly provides otherwise.
The following points need to be borne in mind:
It is not necessary for the information to be personally received by a justice or by the clerk. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. In R v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex p B and Others [1988] Crim LR 842 it was held that an information could be laid by being input into a terminal at a police station of a computer system which was linked to the court, even though it was not printed out at the court end until later.
In computing the limitation period the day on which the offence was committed is not included.
So long as the information is laid within six months, the issue and service of the summons and the subsequent determination may all occur outside that period.
Laying an information within the six months' time limit before deciding whether or not to prosecute may result in the proceedings being stayed as an abuse of process; see R v Brentford Magistrates' Court ex parte Wong [1981] 1 All ER 884.
The six months' time limit applies to most summary road traffic offences, but statutory exceptions do occur. In particular:
Section 6 RTOA 1988."
So, the key step is that a magistrate or authorised member of court staff receives the information.
I am not sure, BTW, who you mean by "criminal justice people", unless you mean court staff.
As for delay in prosecution, there is a large body of case law on this, much of it supplemented by cases on article 6 ECHR.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/abuse_of_proces...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/abuse_of_proces...
Breadvan72 said:
The CPS Guidance page answers many such questions:-
"Laying of the Information
Section 127 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states that for all summary offences the information must be laid within six calendar months of the commission of the offence, except where any other Act expressly provides otherwise.
The following points need to be borne in mind:
It is not necessary for the information to be personally received by a justice or by the clerk. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. In R v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex p B and Others [1988] Crim LR 842 it was held that an information could be laid by being input into a terminal at a police station of a computer system which was linked to the court, even though it was not printed out at the court end until later.
In computing the limitation period the day on which the offence was committed is not included.
So long as the information is laid within six months, the issue and service of the summons and the subsequent determination may all occur outside that period.
Laying an information within the six months' time limit before deciding whether or not to prosecute may result in the proceedings being stayed as an abuse of process; see R v Brentford Magistrates' Court ex parte Wong [1981] 1 All ER 884.
The six months' time limit applies to most summary road traffic offences, but statutory exceptions do occur. In particular:
Section 6 RTOA 1988."
So, the key step is that a magistrate or authorised member of court staff receives the information.
I am not sure, BTW, who you mean by "criminal justice people", unless you mean court staff.
I always assume criminal justice support are the people who prep the casefile and forward it to the court, rather than the police sending it straight to the court?"Laying of the Information
Section 127 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states that for all summary offences the information must be laid within six calendar months of the commission of the offence, except where any other Act expressly provides otherwise.
The following points need to be borne in mind:
It is not necessary for the information to be personally received by a justice or by the clerk. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. In R v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex p B and Others [1988] Crim LR 842 it was held that an information could be laid by being input into a terminal at a police station of a computer system which was linked to the court, even though it was not printed out at the court end until later.
In computing the limitation period the day on which the offence was committed is not included.
So long as the information is laid within six months, the issue and service of the summons and the subsequent determination may all occur outside that period.
Laying an information within the six months' time limit before deciding whether or not to prosecute may result in the proceedings being stayed as an abuse of process; see R v Brentford Magistrates' Court ex parte Wong [1981] 1 All ER 884.
The six months' time limit applies to most summary road traffic offences, but statutory exceptions do occur. In particular:
Section 6 RTOA 1988."
So, the key step is that a magistrate or authorised member of court staff receives the information.
I am not sure, BTW, who you mean by "criminal justice people", unless you mean court staff.
Breadvan72 said:
The CPS Guidance page answers many such questions:-
"Laying of the Information
Section 127 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states that for all summary offences the information must be laid within six calendar months of the commission of the offence, except where any other Act expressly provides otherwise.
The following points need to be borne in mind:
It is not necessary for the information to be personally received by a justice or by the clerk. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. In R v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex p B and Others [1988] Crim LR 842 it was held that an information could be laid by being input into a terminal at a police station of a computer system which was linked to the court, even though it was not printed out at the court end until later.
In computing the limitation period the day on which the offence was committed is not included.
So long as the information is laid within six months, the issue and service of the summons and the subsequent determination may all occur outside that period.
Laying an information within the six months' time limit before deciding whether or not to prosecute may result in the proceedings being stayed as an abuse of process; see R v Brentford Magistrates' Court ex parte Wong [1981] 1 All ER 884.
The six months' time limit applies to most summary road traffic offences, but statutory exceptions do occur. In particular:
Section 6 RTOA 1988."
So, the key step is that a magistrate or authorised member of court staff receives the information.
I am not sure, BTW, who you mean by "criminal justice people", unless you mean court staff.
Breadvan,"Laying of the Information
Section 127 Magistrates' Court Act 1980 states that for all summary offences the information must be laid within six calendar months of the commission of the offence, except where any other Act expressly provides otherwise.
The following points need to be borne in mind:
It is not necessary for the information to be personally received by a justice or by the clerk. It is enough that it is received by a member of his staff impliedly authorised to receive it. In R v Pontypridd Juvenile Court ex p B and Others [1988] Crim LR 842 it was held that an information could be laid by being input into a terminal at a police station of a computer system which was linked to the court, even though it was not printed out at the court end until later.
In computing the limitation period the day on which the offence was committed is not included.
So long as the information is laid within six months, the issue and service of the summons and the subsequent determination may all occur outside that period.
Laying an information within the six months' time limit before deciding whether or not to prosecute may result in the proceedings being stayed as an abuse of process; see R v Brentford Magistrates' Court ex parte Wong [1981] 1 All ER 884.
The six months' time limit applies to most summary road traffic offences, but statutory exceptions do occur. In particular:
Section 6 RTOA 1988."
So, the key step is that a magistrate or authorised member of court staff receives the information.
I am not sure, BTW, who you mean by "criminal justice people", unless you mean court staff.
How would one determine when the information is laid ?
I have received a summons for a speeding offence that took place in mid March, apart from the dates relating to the offence and the NIP being issued and returned, the only other date mentioned on the paperwork is for 13/10/14 when the summons was issued which is clearly outside of the 6 month window. Court date is not until February (not relevant I assume).
rossc said:
Breadvan,
How would one determine when the information is laid ?
I have received a summons for a speeding offence that took place in mid March, apart from the dates relating to the offence and the NIP being issued and returned, the only other date mentioned on the paperwork is for 13/10/14 when the summons was issued which is clearly outside of the 6 month window. Court date is not until February (not relevant I assume).
The court will have the definitive answer. Make a call? Alternately, email it to me and I'll have a look at it - I would need the summons/requsition (both pages if on two sides) and all witness statements.How would one determine when the information is laid ?
I have received a summons for a speeding offence that took place in mid March, apart from the dates relating to the offence and the NIP being issued and returned, the only other date mentioned on the paperwork is for 13/10/14 when the summons was issued which is clearly outside of the 6 month window. Court date is not until February (not relevant I assume).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff