The Court of Appeal dismissed Stephen Bennett’s appeal against a High Court decision upholding the Director of Public Prosecutions’ power to prosecute him summarily for alleged obstruction offences under the Water Services Act 2007.
The appeal concerned statutory interpretation. Section 9(1) of the Act says summary proceedings for an offence may be brought by a water services authority. Bennett argued that this wording, read with provisions on fines and prosecution costs, meant the authority—or, before a 2013 amendment, a person designated by ministerial regulations—was entitled to prosecute. He submitted that the Act excluded the DPP. He also argued that any ambiguity in a penal provision should be resolved in the accused’s favour.
The DPP submitted that the Act gave water services authorities an additional power to prosecute but did not displace the DPP’s general authority. She relied on a line of legal authority, including Attorney General v Healy, concerning the prosecution powers inherited by the DPP from the Attorney General.
The High Court had rejected Bennett’s challenge. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with that approach. It found no ambiguity in section 9 and said the provision contained no clear language removing the DPP’s ordinary jurisdiction. The court said the maxim that expressly naming one thing excludes others had no real application in the circumstances.
The judgment also referred to earlier authorities recognising the DPP’s general power to prosecute, and to academic commentary describing that power as a reserve power where another authorised prosecutor has not acted first. The court considered amendments made in 2013 to sections 9 and 11, alongside the fact that section 10 on prosecution costs remained unchanged. It said those provisions did not exclude the DPP and could accommodate the Director as a prosecutor.
The court concluded that the DPP was entitled to commence summary proceedings and dismissed the appeal. The judgment determined the DPP’s authority to prosecute; it does not state the outcome of the underlying criminal proceedings or determine whether Bennett committed the alleged offence.