Houghton, Stephen Henry v. Liverpool City Council

Date

8 October 1999

Legislation

Trade Marks Act 1994, s. 92(5)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
Criminal Justice Act 1967

Keywords

appeals; criminal offences; defences; admissibility of evidence

Counsel

Mr RS Mills; Mr N Flewitt

Solicitors

Moore Sexton Bibby

Judge

Laws LJ.

Court

Queen's Bench Division

Reported

[2000] Crim.L.R. 574

Summary

• This was an appeal by way of Case Stated. The Appellant's solicitors initially informed the Trading Standards Officer that the only issue was in relation to a defence under s.92(5) and none of the prosecution witnesses would be required. However counsel for the Appellant, Mr.Mills, objected to the admissibility of the witness statements at the hearing. As no objection had been raised prior to the hearing, for the Respondent was asked if he wanted to proceed or apply for adjournment. The Respondent decided to proceed but then asked for an adjournment at a later stage which was agreed to so that the case 'could be decided on its merits'.
  
  Was the court wrong to allow an adjournment?
  
  No, it did give the prosecution the chance to correct errors but it was not unfair in the circumstances so that justice could be done to all parties.
• Because of this adjournment, four witnesses were called who gave expert testimony as to whether the products in question were counterfeit. Mr Mills argued this should be excluded under s.78 PACE'84 because at least some of it was new evidence. However Laws LJ considered this merely an act of even handedness.
• The third question: "Was the courts decision to admit the certificate and extract from the Patent Office of the Trade Marks Registry, as evidence that the Tommy Hilfiger name and logo were registered trade marks, wrong in law?"
  
  A certificate was provided to certify that s.69(1)(b) PACE '84 was complied with (computer was operating correctly). The Appellant objected to this certificate because it should have been served at least seven days before the hearing under s.9(2)(d) CJA 1967. The respondents drew attention to the fact that the Trade Marks Registry is a public document and argued that it was admissible under s.1 Evidence Act 1845 or s.14 Evidence Act 1851. These allow public documents to be adduced as they are regarded as self-proving but because it is computerised, s.69 PACE '84 still applies. However, schedule 3 to the Act of 1984 provides that the certificate is not to be treated as a written statement for the purposes of s.9 of the 1967 Act.
• The court has jurisdiction to make a summary assessment of costs and need not make an order in the rounds for detailed assessment. Public authorities are excluded from s.17 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 which relates to a prosecution costs order from central funds.