Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Criminal Proceedings in the County Court
All the County Court forms seem to relate to land or money claims. How do you start a prosecution in the County Court - ie, what form needs to be completed? Is it the same as the Magistrates Court where a letter detailing the offence would be enough? (The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 says that the court for part 1 is the County Court. The penalties do potentially include time in the slammer).
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stucker. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, the prosecution for criminal offences under the Act is by the District Council or London Borough, or its equivalent elsewhere. It is not by the individual. The individual may sue for damages in the County Court.
The criminal prosecution is in the criminal court, not the County Court.If the individual wishes a prosecution they should inform the Council of what has happened , with such evidence and other information they have, and leave it with the Council to decide whether to prosecute or not.
The criminal prosecution is in the criminal court, not the County Court.If the individual wishes a prosecution they should inform the Council of what has happened , with such evidence and other information they have, and leave it with the Council to decide whether to prosecute or not.
Ermm, it's the Council which committed the crime and they (not suprprisingly) do not wish to prosecute themselves. I'm not some slightly deranged individual with a vendetta - I used to be in charge of that side of the Council's activities so I know that an offence has been committed. i note what is said about the Criminal Court but the Act is specific in saying the Court for part 1 IS the County Court. So I'm not sure how it's possible to take it to the Magistrates' Court.
As for the entitlement to prosecute being restricted to the appropriate Local authority - does para 20 of the following decision by the Supreme Court mean that the restriction does not apply?
http://www.bailii.org...ollins&method=boolean
As for the entitlement to prosecute being restricted to the appropriate Local authority - does para 20 of the following decision by the Supreme Court mean that the restriction does not apply?
http://www.bailii.org...ollins&method=boolean
No. The section is referring to proceedings being instituted in the County Court if the court has a land jurisdiction or in the High Court in any other case. It can only mean to refer to the civil claim for harassment etc It's talking about which of the two civil courts the proceedings are started in. Otherwise we wouldn't know whether they had to be started in the High Court only, whether a Registrar can deal with them, and so on.It's impossible to start any criminal proceedings in either court. Criminal proceedings start in the magistrates court and either stay there (summary) or are sent to Crown Court (on indictment).
The case in the Supreme Court was on a different point than that which you would make. It was whether the FSA could not institute a prosecution for an offence when it expressly could for a very similar one under the same act. Held: It was plain that Parliament intended the FSA to institute prosecutions for both.
Part III does not say 'may only' be prosecuted, true.But it appears that it is defining which of various possible local government or other bodies may prosecute, not giving some extra power to District Councils which they wouldn't otherwise have when private individuals do have it [see judgment in the case you cited for general powers to prosecute ].It therefore seems an exclusive power and the absence of the word 'only' ,though it might have made that plainer, does not affect that.
The case in the Supreme Court was on a different point than that which you would make. It was whether the FSA could not institute a prosecution for an offence when it expressly could for a very similar one under the same act. Held: It was plain that Parliament intended the FSA to institute prosecutions for both.
Part III does not say 'may only' be prosecuted, true.But it appears that it is defining which of various possible local government or other bodies may prosecute, not giving some extra power to District Councils which they wouldn't otherwise have when private individuals do have it [see judgment in the case you cited for general powers to prosecute ].It therefore seems an exclusive power and the absence of the word 'only' ,though it might have made that plainer, does not affect that.
Local Authority powers are prescriptive. I have to look at the law books to say I currently have the power to do this or that. If it aint specified then I can't do it.
There aren't many cases that seem to cover the point but this is the closest there is; http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/205
The Court didn't say that the Council were wrong in saying a Private Prosecution was possible.
Thanks for your time on this!
There aren't many cases that seem to cover the point but this is the closest there is; http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/205
The Court didn't say that the Council were wrong in saying a Private Prosecution was possible.
Thanks for your time on this!
1 to 7 of 7
