R. v Farrugia (Karl)

Date

23 January 1996

Legislation

Trade Marks Act 1938
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Keywords

offences; counterfeit goods; sentencing; order for costs

Counsel

H Roberts

Solicitors:

unknown.

Judge:

LRose LJ, Blofeld J and HHJ Astill

Court:

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported:

[1996] C.L.Y. 1814. No. 95/4611/Y4.

Summary:

Farrugia was convicted and sentenced for five offences of having obscene publications (two years concurrent for each offence), two offences of fraudulent use of a trademark (three years concurrent with each other and the two years) and three of making infringements of copyright (one year concurrent with each other and the other sentences). He appealed against sentence.

During a raid of Farrugia’s office by trading standards, 460 pornographic videos were found, several counterfeit videos of the Walt Disney Company, 20 video machines copying a Disney film, and 14 brown counterfeit Nike t-shirts. Further copying paraphernalia was found at Farrugia’s home address and machinery and dyes for printing t-shirts. His defence was to deny having anything to do with obscene videos or copying.

The appeal against sentence proceeded on the basis that it was too long and disproportionate to that of his co-defendant. In particular Farrugia submitted that the 3 year concurrent sentence on the Nike t-shirts was too long given that only a small number of articles were involved.

Decision:

It was held that, had there only been 14 t-shirts it would have been disproportionate, but as there was a box of unprinted t-shirts found and the machinery for imprinting the false trade mark, the sentence was appropriate for the trade mark offence.

However, the Court of Appeal quashed the order of £5000 costs on the basis that there was no evidence before the court below as to the defendant's means. Farrugia swore an affidavit setting out that he had no assets other than his equity in his house. The Court of Appeal noted that it was only in exceptional circumstances that they would order sale of a house and accordingly quashed the costs award.