Friskies schedules

1. In R v Friskies Petcare UK Ltd ¹, the Court of Appeal strongly recommended that whenever HSE prosecutes, it should set out in writing:

• the case summary; and
• any aggravating features in schedule form that HSE say exist in the present case ². All of the relevant aggravating features should be set out from the outset. If a defendant pleads guilty on the basis set out in a Friskies schedule, then other aggravating features cannot be raised at a later sentencing hearing.

2. The Friskies schedule should be served on the court and the defendants as soon as possible, and in any event before they enter their plea. This will normally mean serving the document with the Summons and Initial details of the prosecution case (see Initial details of the prosecution case). The need to serve the Friskies schedule at the outset of proceedings has been emphasised in the case of Dilisser Roy Bernard v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council.³

3. If the defendant intends to plead guilty, the defence should submit a similar document, setting out the mitigating features which the court is to be invited to take into account.

4. If there is agreement between the parties as to the facts of the case and the aggravating and mitigating features, the agreed basis for plea should be put into writing in a combined document prepared by the prosecutor and agreed by the defence. This should then be provided to the court in advance of the hearing, so that there is no doubt about the proper basis upon which the court should sentence.

5. Further guidance on the preparation and service of Friskies schedules is given in the section Factors Relevant to Sentencing. An example of a typical Friskies schedule and a suggested covering letter to the defence can be found in the section Model examples.

---

Footnotes

1. [2000] 2 Cr App R (S) 401.
2. R v F Howe & Son (Engineers) Ltd [1999] 2 AII ER 249.
3. Dilisser Roy Bernard v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] EWHC 147 Admin. In this case, the respondent Council prosecuted offences under HSWA but refused to serve a Friskies schedule. Mr Justice Henriques commented that the prosecuting authority “should at the very commencement of the criminal proceedings have provided the Friskies schedule…It is not sufficient for a prosecuting authority in a Health and Safety at Work Act case merely to serve the summonses and statements. It is more than difficult to find out in this particular case exactly what the prosecution case is by mere reference to the statements. I have no doubt at all that if the prosecution had continued in the present case to decline to furnish full particulars of their case, that ultimately they would have lost the judicial review proceedings.”