Victor Smith ponders a recent case suggesting that the troublesome 2002 decision in Woolworths may still be unduly influential, despite the Court of Appeal having declared it wrongly decided
- Considers the recent case of R (City of York Council) v AUH; R (Birmingham City Council) v BIY [2022] EWCA Crim 1113, from which it appears that the scope of a local authority’s power to prosecute for offences committed outside of their area is not as settled as it should be.
Ever since the troublesome decision of the Divisional Court in Brighton and Hove City Council v Woolworths plc [2002] EWHC 2565 (Admin) (Woolworths), there has been doubt as to whether, notwithstanding the clear words of s 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972), local authorities have a power to prosecute for offences alleged to have been committed outside their area. Section 222(1) provides: ‘Where a local authority consider it expedient for the promotion or protection of the inhabitants of their area... they may prosecute or defend or appear in any legal proceedings…’.
