Local authority prosecution powers

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

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.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Local Government News

Supreme Court clarifies interpretation of building distance requirements under Cremation Act 1902 (Wathen-Fayed v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and another)

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal in Wathen-Fayed v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It held that the term ‘crematorium’ in section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902 (CA 1902) refers specifically to ‘a ‘building fitted with appliances for the purpose of burning human remains’ (ie the crematory building). Accordingly, the distance requirements in CA 1902, s 5 must be measured from the building housing the crematory itself. Peter Goately KC and Sioned Davies, barristers at No5 Barristers’ Chambers, provide commentary on the judgment.

DBT announces plans to introduce National Licensing Policy Framework for hospitality sector

The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has announced plans to introduce a new National Licensing Policy Framework aimed at modernising planning and licensing rules for the hospitality sector. The framework is intended to streamline the conversion of vacant retail spaces into hospitality venues and establish dedicated hospitality zones where permissions for alfresco dining, street parties and extended opening hours will be fast-tracked. As part of the reforms, the DBT will incorporate the Agent of Change principle into national planning and licensing policy, making developers responsible for soundproofing their buildings constructed near existing pubs, clubs or music venues. These proposals will be subject to a call for evidence, to be published in due course.

Cabinet Office publishes updated scope and remit for Public Procurement Review Service (PPRS)

The Cabinet Office has updated its guidance on the Procurement Review Unit (PRU), which has oversight of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) regime. The update includes the addition of a new scope and remit document for the Public Procurement Review Service (PPRS). The PPRS was introduced in 2011, but has been part of the PRU since PA 2023 went live in February 2025, alongside the Procurement Compliance Service (PCS) and Debarment Review Service (DBS). The previous PPRS scope and remit document was withdrawn for revision in March 2025. Submission of a referral to a PRU service is taken as acknowledgement and acceptance of its scope and remit. Users are therefore ‘highly’ encouraged to review the relevant scope and remit documents before engaging these services.

Supreme Court clarifies operator liability under PHV licensing regime (D.E.L.T.A. Merseyside Ltd v Uber Britannia Ltd)

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Uber Britannia Ltd’s appeal, holding that private hire (PHV) operators outside London are not required to contract as principals when accepting bookings. Philip Kolvin KC, barrister at 11KBW and counsel for the First Respondent, welcomed the judgment, stating that it ‘conclusively upheld the right of operators, drivers and passengers to contract as they wish,’ preserving longstanding industry practice and safeguarding consumer choice. Josef Cannon KC, of Cornerstone Barristers, emphasised that ‘the decision confirms that section 56(1) creates liability without dictating contract structure, enabling continued use of the agency and intermediary models across England and Wales.

View Local Government by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of
What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?

Can shares in a limited company that have not been paid-up at all be cancelled?A limited company having a share capital may not alter that share capital, except in the ways listed in section 617 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Shares in a company cannot simply be cancelled without following an

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements

Template for regulatory references given by SMCR firms and disclosure requirements[Insert addressee details]Dear [insert name][It is our understanding that [insert name of prospective employee] [was an employee of yours between the dates of [insert dates as appropriate] OR is a current employee of