The importance of time limits and documentation when prosecuting (Russnak-Johnston v Reading Magistrates’ Court)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Question one—can the PCN properly request documents?
• Question two—were the offences time barred?
• Case details

Article summary

Corporate Crime analysis: The court held that there is no bar to a local planning authority (LPA) requesting the provision of documents in a planning contravention notice (PCN); indeed, such requests, and compliance with them, are likely to prevent unnecessary litigation, and be of significant practical benefit to all parties. However, LPAs must be aware of the time limit for prosecuting summary only offences. The obligation to comply with an PCN persists until the PCN is satisfied in full; as such, the offence of failing to comply ‘continues’, and may be prosecuted even outside of the initial 21-day limit. In contrast, where the allegation is that a response to a PCN is misleading, that must be judged at the time that statement was made. Written by Carolina Bracken, barrister, at 5 Paper Buildings.