London Borough of Newham v Thames Magistrates' Court
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE WILKIE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The London Borough of Newham appealed against a decision by the Thames Magistrates' Court that acquitted Mr. Khalis Miah of breaching an enforcement notice under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The key legal issues involved service of the notice and whether the planning breaches occurred within four years. The High Court found that the magistrates had wrongly dismissed the case based on service issues and misapplied the legal principles regarding the prosecution's burden of proof. The appeal was allowed and remitted back to the Magistrates' Court.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE WILKIE: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Newham appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Thames Magistrates' Court upon trial of Khalis Miah, the interested party, which took place on 7 May 2013.
The claimant was prosecuting Mr Miah for an offence said to have been committed by him pursuant to sections 179(1) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 , namely being the owner of the land in question and being in breach of an enforcement notice. There had been a preliminary issue argued as to whether evidence in the form of certificates of service signed by Luke Cadman on 29 September 2010 could be admitted, notwithstanding the fact that he was not in attendance at court. The magistrates concluded that it could be. The council's only live witness was Stephen Pavett, a planning enforcement officer. He produced a number of documents which were exhibits to a witness statement, he having given evidence in accordance with that witness statement in chief. He was also subject to cross-examination on behalf of Mr Miah.
At the close of the prosecution case, counsel for Mr Miah made a submission of no case to answer. The justices allowed that submission of no case and dismissed the charge. The council applied for the magistrates to state a case pursuant to section 111 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 . It is unnecessary for me to rehearse the sequence of events which then resulted but suffice it to say that a judicial review claim form was issued by the council on 7 August 2013 seeking review of decisions of the magistrates dated 29 May, 27 June and 7 May, all in 2013, the first two of which concern their decision not to state a case.
However, those judicial review proceedings have been superseded by the fact that the magistrates have stated a case in a form with which the council is not entirely satisfied, in particular the questions posed for the opinion of the High Court. However, I am satisfied that the case stated is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal and that is the document which forms the foundation of the appeal.
The case stated cites that on 13 December 2012 an information was preferred by the council against Mr Miah, namely that on 10 November 2011 Mr Miah, being the owner of 91 Dongola Road, Plaistow, London E13, was in breach of an enforcement notice issued on 24 September 2010 by the council in that he had not taken steps required by the notice to be taken by 12 September 201