R v Carter (Carol Dawn)

Date

24 January 1992

Legislation

Keywords

Counsel

Lawrence Jones for Carter

Solicitors:

Church Bruce Hawkes Basingham and Phillips

Judge:

Lord Chief Justice Lane, Kennedy J and Jowitt JJ.

Court:

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported:

(1992) 13 Cr App R (S) 576, [1993] FSR 303

Summary:

Carter pleaded guilty to two counts in a multi-count indictment: count 8, the distribution of an infringing copy, contrary to section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and count 9, the making of 219 infringing copies, contrary to the same section. Both offences related to making pirate copies of video films; on February 27, 1990, the appellant had hired to a Mr Epps a pirate videotape of the film "Shirley Valentine." According to Mr Epps he had been hiring videotapes from her for 12 to 18 months. She visited him usually weekly, but sometimes missed several weeks at a time. That was a specimen count. In relation to count 9, on April 17th 1990, Carter's home in Dartford was searched. Officers found three video recorders connected to each other so that an original film could be played on one video recorder whilst the other two machines recorded the film, making, in other words, pirate copies. In all 219 infringing copies of other films were found. There were also documents showing purchase of 500 blank tapes. During the search the appellant told the police officers that she was only trying to earn a living and then exercised her right to silence.

Carter was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each suspended for two years concurrent on each count; this was also coupled with a supervision order for two years.

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that counterfeiting of video films is a serious offence. In effect to make and distribute pirate copies of films is to steal from the true owner of the copyright, the property for which he has to expend money in order to possess it. It is an offence really of dishonesty. In its judgment there was nothing at all to criticise in the sentence of nine months' imprisonment suspended in whole as it was. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Reviewed 30 November 2008