Jobson v DPP [2025] EWHC 1385 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 310
This case clarified whether low-value shop thefts are subject to the six-month prosecution time limit under Section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980). Ms Jobson was charged by postal requisition with stealing £88 worth of goods, more than six months after the alleged offence. She pleaded guilty at the Magistrates’ Court but later sought to reopen the case under Section 142, arguing that the charge was laid out of time for what she claimed was a summary-only offence.
She relied on Section 22A MCA 1980, which provides that shop thefts involving goods worth £200 or less must be tried summarily unless the defendant elects jury trial. Her argument was that since the offence was “summary-only”, the six-month rule applied and had been breached.
However, Mrs Justice Hill dismissed the appeal, holding that theft remains an either-way offence until the defendant first appears in Court and is given the opportunity to elect a Crown Court trial. It is only at that moment – the allocation hearing – that the offence becomes “summary-only” for procedural purposes. Therefore, the time limit in Section 127(1) was not engaged at the point the charge was laid.
The judge rejected the argument that the nature of the offence could be retrospectively reclassified to make the prosecution invalid. That would create legal uncertainty and violet Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits retrospective application of criminal law to a defendant’s disadvantage.
Would the outcome differ if Jobson had accepted summary trial at first hearing?
No. The Court was clear that accepting summary trial at the first hearing does not backdate the offence’s classification for the purposes of time limits. The key legal moment is when the charge is brought – and at that point, theft remains triable either way. Jobson’s acceptance of summary trial did not retrospectively convert her office into a summary-only matter for the purpose of Section 127.
To allow otherwise would undermine procedural fairness and legal certainty. The High Court affirmed the Divisional Court’s ruling in Candlish v DPP [2022] 1 WLR 5205, applying its logic even to thefts under £200.
In summary the appeal failed because:
- Theft was indictable when charged, so Section 127’s six-month limit did not apply;
- The procedural classification as “summary-only” arises at first appearance. not before;
- Accepting summary trial does not retrospectively trigger the time limit
This case affirms that prosecutions for low-value thefts can validly proceed outside the six-month period, provided the charge was laid before allocation. It ensures consistency with human rights principles and maintains a clear boundary between procedural steps and legal classifications.
Applied: Candlish v DDP [2022]
Distingyished: Maxwell, Burrows, Harvey
Khadim Al’Hassan is a highly regarded and formidable barrister with over 30 years of extensive experience in serious crime, complex regulatory matters, and jurisdictional issues in both UK and international courts and tribunals.
If you would like to book Khadim, please contact one of his clerks.
Contact related clerks:
