Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson 2025
The alleged assault in a domestic abuse case took place on 28 June 2023. The complainant made her witness statement on 27 September 2023. The prosecutor issued a postal requisition charging the offence of common assault on 27 March 2024. St Albans Magistrates' Court determined that the prosecution was brought one day late, holding that time started to run at 23:59 on 27 September 2023 and expired at 23:59 on 26 March 2024. The Magistrates concluded they had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The police did not refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service until 21 March 2024, leaving limited time for proper consideration of the file.
A week before the appeal hearing, J's solicitors wrote to the Court stating they had advised their client that the appeal could not be defended.
The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) by way of case stated against the Magistrates' decision that they lacked jurisdiction.
The Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that there was a consistent line of authority establishing that where a statute uses prepositions such as "after" or "from" in connection with a specified date, that date is excluded from account when calculating the expiry of the relevant time limit (the "exclusionary rule"). DPP further submitted that the "corresponding date rule" applies, meaning the six-month period ends at midnight on the day in the 6th month that bears the same number as the day the witness statement was made. DPP argued that several authorities supported these submissions, including Radcliffe v Bartholomew, Stewart v Chapman, Marren v Dawson Bentley, Pritam Kaur v S. Russell & Sons Ltd, and Dodds v Walker.
J did not appear and was not represented at the hearing. His solicitors had previously written to the Court stating they had advised their client that the appeal could not be defended.
Held
Appeal allowed.
The King's Bench Division allowed the DPPs' appeal, holding that the Magistrates were incorrect in concluding that the period begins on the date of the complainant's witness statement. The court determined that the date of the witness statement must be excluded from the calculation, and that proceedings were therefore brought in time on the last possible day (27 March 2024). The court remitted the case to the Magistrates for trial, noting that difficulties in this case could have been avoided if proceedings had not been commenced on the last possible available day.
The court identified that the key issue was whether, in calculating the six-month period "from" the date of the complainant's witness statement under section 39A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the date of the statement should be included or excluded. The court reviewed numerous authorities and concluded that there is no difference for these purposes between civil and criminal contexts, citing Radcliffe v Bartholomew. The court found that there is no practical difference in effect between the prepositions "from" and "after" - both require the exclusionary rule to be applied. The court distinguished between these prepositions and prepositional phrases such as "starting with", noting that the latter phrases are inclusionary, requiring the date of the relevant act to be included in the calculation of the time limit. The court determined that the effect of wording such as "of", "after" or "from" a certain date is that the date itself must be excluded from the calculation of the time limit. The court explained that the consequence of applying the exclusionary rule is that, when a period of months is specified, the corresponding date rule applies. The court concluded that the Magistrates erred by holding that time started at 23:59 on 27 September 2023, thereby incorrectly including the start date in their calculation. The court noted that by applying the exclusionary rule correctly, time did not start running on 27 September but began on 28 September, and therefore the six-month period expired on 27 March 2024. The court observed that the Magistrates, having been referred to Dodds v Walker, should have recognised that 26 March 2024 did not correspond with 27 September 2023.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
