Procedure (see also: Environmental impact assessment, European Convention on Human Rights) - Environment Agency v Campbell and another (8 May 1998) Queen's Bench Divisional Court

Roy Campbell and Cowal Leisure Limited were accused of causing sheep-dip to enter a stream from the Lakeland Sheep and Wool Centre in Cockermouth. Before the hearing on 12 November 1997, the solicitors for Mr Campbell and Cowal Leisure Limited wrote to the Environment Agency saying their clients would plead guilty. The prosecutor's representative failed to appear at the hearing and Workington Magistrates dismissed the informations under Section 15 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. On 17 December 1997 the Environment Agency laid identical informations against Mr Campbell and Cowal Leisure Limited. Workington Magistrates refused to hear new informations laid by the Environment Agency on the basis that where a charge has been dismissed the prosecution cannot thereafter institute proceedings on the same or an essentially similar charge. Therefore, to hear the informations would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The Environment Agency appealed by way of case stated to the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. The Court noted that, in light of Section 15, in the absence of the prosecutor, the Magistrates had no power to convict the accused. The only options were to adjourn the case or to dismiss the informations. The Court held that in view of the fact that Mr Campbell and Cowal Leisure Limited intended to plead guilty and also that there had been a previous adjournment of the case at their request, it was difficult to see what prejudice they would have suffered had an adjournment been granted. The Magistrates had not exercised their discretion to decide whether it would be an abuse of process for the new informations to be heard. Had they exercised their discretion to ask what prejudice would be caused to the accused if new informations were preferred, when viewed against public interest in the issues being tried, they would have concluded that it could not be an abuse of process of the Court to allow the informations to be heard. Therefore, a Court that dismisses an information because the prosecutor fails to appear at Court is not necessarily barred from hearing an identical information subsequently laid against the same defendant. The appeal was allowed and the Magistrates were ordered to hear the new informations. (Times Law Reports, 18 May 1998)