Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
DPP had jurisdiction to prosecute for obstruction of water services authority
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of High Court rejection of challenge to the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to prosecute the appellant summarily for the offence of obstructing a water services authority when exercising its statutory powers, on the grounds that: a) the DPP was entitled to commence summary proceedings since there was no hint of a suggestion that the normal jurisdiction of the DPP was ousted when interpreting the relevant legislation.
Criminal law – appeal of High Court rejection of challenge to the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute summarily for breaches of s. 12 of the Water Services Act 2007 – offence to obstruct a water services authority when exercising its statutory powers – statutory interpretation – Section 9(1) of the Water Services Act 2007 – expressio unius exclusio alterius – whether the Act allows the DPP to prosecute – s. 45(1) of the Water Services (No 2.) Act 2013 – Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 – Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 – Criminal Justice (Administration) Act 1924 – no ambiguity in section – no hint of a suggestion that the normal jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions is ousted – DPP was entitled to commence summary proceedings – appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
