Queen’s Bench Divisional Court

Published May 11, 2007

Rockall v Department for Environment, Rood and Rural Affairs

Proceedings were instituted against an individual for felling trees without a licence when an information was laid and that determined whether or not the time limit for the institution of proceedings had been met. An information was laid in time where it could be established by inference or otherwise that it had been transmitted to a magistrates court by fax within time.

Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Davis so held in the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court on March 22, 2007 when dismissing an appeal by case stated by Michael John Rockall against his conviction by Lowestoft Justices for felling trees without a licence contrary to section 17(1) of the Forestry Act 1967.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM said that as a matter of principle the laying of an information was the act which should determine whether or not the time limit for instituting proceedings under section 17(2) of the 1967 Act had been met.

An information was laid by fax when it could properly be inferred that the information was retrievable, whether retrieved in fact or not. The evidence upon which the justices had relied in the claimant’s case comprised fax headings and fax transmission sheets. In the absence of any contrary evidence, that was sufficient to justify the inference that the information had been made available.

The justices were therefore entitled to conclude that the information had been laid in time.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers