Jobson v Director of Public Prosecutions 2025
On 26 October 2023, J was charged by postal requisition with the theft of £88 of meat from a butchers, which was alleged to have happened on 10 April 2023. As such, J was charged six months and 15 days after the offence. J subsequently appeared before the magistrates' court and pleaded guilty; she was given a conditional discharge. Later the same day, J's representatives realised the prosecution had been commenced more than six months after the offence. Section 127(1) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 (MCA) provides a general time limit of six months for commencing proceedings in the magistrates' court for summary only offences. Section 22A of the MCA makes shoplifting of items which in aggregate were valued at or, below £200, triable only summarily - unless the defendant elected for trial at Crown Court.
J applied to the District Judge to re-open the case under section 142 of the MCA so they could raise the issue of the prosecution being time barred. After hearing full arguments, the District Judge dismissed J's application, in reliance on Candlish v DPP (2022), which determined theft offences remain indictable until the accused's first court appearance before the magistrates to answer the charge. Therefore, the six-month limit did not apply in the present case.
J appealed by way of case stated. The question for the court was whether the District Judge was correct to find that a low value shop theft is not time barred under the provisions of section 127 of the MCA in circumstances when the proceedings are brought outside of the 6 months' time limit for summary only offences?
J contended that the prosecution for low-value shop theft falling within section 22A of the MCA was not time-barred within the scope of section 127(1) of the MCA. J also asserted that Candlish only applied to aggregated thefts exceeding £200 and did not apply to single low-value thefts (as were the facts of this case).
The DPP's position was that the District Judge had reached a correct finding on the issue in light of the case of Candlish, and stated that it was applicable to all theft offences regardless of aggregation and that theft remained indictable until the first court hearing where a magistrates' court determined their value and classification.
Held
Appeal dismissed.
The District Judge was correct to find that a low value shop theft is not time barred under the provisions of section 127 of the MCA.
The central issue in Candlish was the status of individual offences of theft prior to the appellant's first appearance before the justices. The conclusion reached was that the stage at which an offence of theft may become a low-value shoplifting offence within section 22A is the occasion when the accused appears before the Magistrates Court to answer the charge; and that "until then, the offence of theft is, like all other offences of theft, an indictable offence, in that it is triable either way". The use of the phrase "like all other offences of theft" in this passage makes it clear that the ratio of the judgment was not limited to cases about aggregation: rather this was a statement of general application to all theft offences, to the effect that they are all indictable or triable either way until the first appearance before the Magistrates.
The court determined legal uncertainty could be avoided in this approach as, J's interpretation of Candlish only applying to aggregation cases involves the possibility of an offence becoming statute-barred but then becoming "un-barred" at a later date – with the possibility of offences “drifting” in and out of a state capable of being prosecuted. Such a position is inconsistent with the need for certainty in the criminal law. Furthermore, such a position may amount to a breach of the prohibition on the retrospective application of the criminal law as afforded by Article 7(1)of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Section 22A(1) of the MCA states in terms that an offence of low-value shop theft "is" triable only summarily. However, the sub-section cannot be read in isolation, as Candlish made clear, and section 22A(2) of the MCA is clear that the proposition in section 22A(1) of the MCA is not absolute position with section 22A(2) of the MCA allowing low-value shop thefts to be tried by the Crown Court if the defendant elects it. Furthermore, section 22A of the MCA does have some limited consequences where it applies; no plea before venue hearings were required and the Magistrates cannot deny a defendant who pleaded not guilty a summary trial if they did not elect trial in the Crown Court. Accordingly, section 22A may have speeded up proceedings for low-value shoplifting offences to some degree.
The court's ruling reinforces that all theft from shop offences are indictable, regardless of value until the value and aggregate value are determined at the first appearance at the magistrates' court. Accordingly, when charged, theft offences are indictable and section 127(1) was disapplied by virtue of section 127(2). Where an offence is later deemed triable only summarily, it did not affect section 127 of the MCA's application.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
