Prosecution time limits

[Fawkes Cat]

Please can anyone confirm whether TFL can prosecute for any incidents that occurred more than 6 months ago?

And point to the relevant legislation?

I may have "gamed" Oyster card features (more about testing the system than outright theft)

Many thanks

I've taken this comment from another thread as it may be of general interest and we need ti bear the law in mind.

My understanding is that Magistrate's Court proceedings have to start within six months of the offence, but there's no such limit for Crown Court cases.

Am I right in this? And if so, what defines Magistrates' Court against Crown Court? And what about cases where there have been previous occasions but not all fall in the last six months?

 

[furlong]

And a topical example in the news today, the 10 Downing Street "parties", which might lead to a wider awareness of this limit.

 

[ainsworth74]

And if so, what defines Magistrates' Court against Crown Court?

Often separate buildings

But really they're just different levels of the same court process. Most, if not all, criminal cases will start in the Magistrates court but serious offences will be sent up to the Crown Court due to the potential sanction (Magistrates, very roughly, only deal with matters which carry a maximum sentence of six months beyond that it has to go to Crown for a jury trial). So if you murder someone you will appear at the Magistrates but it'll be rapidly (or not at the moment due to court delays) kicked to the Crown as the Magistrates cannot deal with it due to not having sufficient powers.

My understanding is that Magistrate's Court proceedings have to start within six months of the offence, but there's no such limit for Crown Court cases.

It's less that the Magistrates proceedings have to be started within six months and more that summary offences (those which are relatively minor) have a time limit of six months and summary offences can only be tried in the Magistrates (there is usually no right to a jury trial for a summary offence, that's the whole point, keep a minor criminal case simple and above all, cheap). As RoRA and Byelaw offences are summary offences they can only be tried in the Magistrates and hence there is a six month time limit to bring proceedings.

If you had murdered someone twenty years ago your first stop would almost certainly still be the Magistrates even though the police took twenty years to catch you. The offence in question is not a summary offence therefore no time limit applies.

I am not a lawyer however and so am open to correction on all of the above by my learned friends!

 

[swt_passenger]

I've taken this comment from another thread as it may be of general interest and we need ti bear the law in mind.

My understanding is that Magistrate's Court proceedings have to start within six months of the offence, but there's no such limit for Crown Court cases.

Am I right in this? And if so, what defines Magistrates' Court against Crown Court? And what about cases where there have been previous occasions but not all fall in the last six months?

I think proceedings have to be presented to the court within 6 months of the prosecuting body becoming aware of the offence(s). But when they become aware of an offence is not necessarily the same as the the date the suspected offence(s) took place.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think proceedings have to be presented to the court within 6 months of the prosecuting body becoming aware of the offence(s). But when they become aware of an offence is not necessarily the same as the the date the suspected offence(s) took place.

If it is summary-only then it is the date of the alleged offence which matters. So, a single instance of failing to hand over a ticket for inspection cannot be prosecuted two years after the fact, even if the TOC became aware of the offence only yesterday.

 

[Watershed]

I think proceedings have to be presented to the court within 6 months of the prosecuting body becoming aware of the offence(s). But when they become aware of an offence is not necessarily the same as the the date the suspected offence(s) took place.

The default rule for "summary-only" offences, such as breaches of the Railway Byelaws or of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, is that an information must be laid before the Court within 6 months of the alleged offence. Otherwise a prosecution cannot be brought. See section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

However there are some exceptions to this rule. In the case of Covid restrictions made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, the time limit is 6 months from when the prosecutor considers they have sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, with an absolute cap of 3 years from the date of the alleged offence. See section 64A of the 1984 Act.

There is no time limit for offences which are "triable either way" or which are "triable on indictment" (i.e. cases which can or must be heard in the Crown Court). This would include alleged cases of fraud.

 

[pedr]

The point about alleged breaches of the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations is a red herring in this context because the law on time limits for breaches of regulations made under the authority of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is not the same as the general law for summary-only offences (see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/section/64A)

 

[tspaul26]

The default rule for "summary-only" offences, such as breaches of the Railway Byelaws or of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, is that an information must be laid before the Court within 6 months of the alleged offence. Otherwise a prosecution cannot be brought. See section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

However there are some exceptions to this rule. In the case of Covid restrictions made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, the time limit is 6 months from when the prosecutor considers they have sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, with an absolute cap of 3 years from the date of the alleged offence. See section 64A of the 1984 Act.

There is no time limit for offences which are "triable either way" or which are "triable on indictment" (i.e. cases which can or must be heard in the Crown Court). This would include alleged cases of fraud.

As a solicitor I would commend this useful summary.

 

[ainsworth74]

The OP quoted in the opening post has a dedicated thread here for their issue. This thread is for more general discussion of time limits rather than in a specific case.

 

[nanstallon]

Even when the alleged offence is 'either way', so that s.127 of the Magistrates Court Act doesn't apply, a case can still be thrown out as an 'abuse of process' if there has been long delay that cannot be satisfactorily explained. If you are defending, then it could be worth a try if it is a relatively minor offence and the prosecution/ TOC have sat on the papers for a year or so.