Local authority prosecution powers

Local authority prosecution powers

Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972) gives local authorities power to prosecute criminal offences investigated by their own departments.

Potential defendants may include:

  1. companies

  2. limited liability partnerships (LLPs)

  3. partnerships

  4. sole traders

  5. unincorporated associations, eg clubs

  6. individuals

An investigating officer will need to establish evidence of:

  1. the identity of the offender

  2. the nature of the act

  3. any knowledge, intention or recklessness required

Consideration should also be given to any possible defences which might be raised at trial eg due diligence, since the legal burden of disproving a defence will be on the prosecution.

Practice Note: Local authority investigations explains the powers given to local authorities to investigate criminal offences under the LGA 1972. The scope of enforcement powers available to local authorities is also considered. The Practice Note also includes evidential issues that may arise, how evidence is gathered, the taking and the format of witness statements, interviewing suspects, interviewing a corporate body and the decision to prosecute.

Investigators—checklist highlights some key questions and issues which ...

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Local Government News

Local Government weekly highlights—26 June 2025

This week's edition of Local Government weekly highlights includes: case analysis of Millbrook Healthcare Ltd v Devon CC, in which the court found that damages are an adequate remedy in the procurement dispute despite a not sufficiently serious breach; Birmingham CC and Wolverhampton CC v Persons Unknown, in which the court found compelling justification to continue the injunctions to prevent dangerous car-cruising against persons unknown; R (Ladybill) v Sheffield magistrates’ court & Rotherham MBC, in which the High Court quashed a decision refusing a recusal application; R (AY) v Vale of Glamorgan CBC, in which the court found that there is no right to a solicitor when individual development plans are reviewed; R (Boswell) v SSESNZ, in which greenhouse gas emissions are under scrutiny in a development consent order decision and Ross v SSHCLG and Renewable Energy Systems Ltd, in which the court confirmed that overplanting in solar schemes may be justified beyond panel degradation. Case reports include R (Trinity College (CSP) Ltd) v SSHCLG, in which the court allowed applications for possession orders and final injunctions against persons unknown in relation to disruptive protests conducted by the ‘Cambridge for Palestine’ group; Cetin v Epping FDC, in which the Upper Tribunal clarified that an agent engaged on a ‘let only’ basis with no further management responsibilities does not qualify as ‘person managing’ an HMO under HA 2004; Mitterhuber v Hernandez, in which the court allowed an appeal against a rent repayment order as the FTT was found to have erred in determining the occupancy nature of the property required for the HA 2004 offences; R (AAM) v Bromley LBC, in which the court held that the LA erred in law by taking into account the claimant’s accommodation provided under IAA 1999, s 95 when determining whether exceptional circumstances existed under ChA 1989, s 24 and Norfolk CC v CA, in which the court addressed an application seeking to vary a Transparency Order and found that competing human rights had to be balanced, ultimately favouring the right to freedom of expression. It includes further updates on public procurement, Governance, Education, Social housing, Children’s social care, Social care, Local government finance and Environmental law and climate change.

View Local Government by content type :

Popular documents