R v Mealor (Jonathan Charles)

Date

23 March 2000

Legislation

Keywords

criminal offences; trade mark offences; copyright offences; counterfeit goods; concurrency of sentencing; sentencing

Counsel

PF Shief

Solicitors:

unknown

Judge:

Judge LJ, Wright J, and His Honour Judge Colston QC sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal.

Court:

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported:

unreported

Summary:

Mealor pleaded guilty to 15 counts four of which were the fraudulent use of a trade mark contrary to s58A of the Trade Marks Act 1938 (as amended). Another four counts related to s92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The counts covered a period between August 1993 to December 1995. The second indictment to which he pleaded guilty contained four relevant counts, two of which were distributing material which infringed the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, and two of which were the possession of goods bearing unauthorised Trade Marks.

Mealor controlled about eight video hire shops. Over the years those shops under his control were raided on no less than 25 separate occasions, and from those premises 665 videos had been seized in total, all of those being videos which contravened either the Trade Marks Act or the Copyright Act.

On the first indictment there were concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment on all the 15 counts. On the copyright indictment to which he had pleaded guilty in October 1998, there were sentences of 12 months concurrent on each of those four counts, but they were ordered to run consecutively to the 12 months which had already been imposed on the first indictment. Mealor was also convicted of a social security fraud relating to claimaing benefit while operating the video shops and was sentenced to six months concurrent on each of the six counts to which he had pleaded guilty, but those sentences, while running concurrently one with another, were ordered to run consecutively to the other sentences. Making a total sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment.

On appeal all grounds of appeal were abandoned with the exception of the delay in sentencing. The Court of Appeal noted that those who plead guilty at the first available opportunity should be given credit for those pleas, and they should be given significant credit, and it is important that where, for administrative reasons, the sentences are delayed until long after the pleas have been entered, the courts must be astute to recognise and give encouragement to those who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The delay in Mealor's case was held to be unacceptable. The Court of Appeal noted the important principle, which all courts need to remember, that if possible all defendants who are to be dealt with for related offences should be sentenced on the same day by the same judge in each other's presence. However, there comes a time when that principle must give way if there is long delay, and the reason why it must give way is that it is unjust for individual defendants to wait for long periods of time, even on bail, to know what the sentence of the court is in relation to matters which they have admitted months. It is for those reasons that the Court felt that looking at the sentences afresh they did need to be reduced.

The first indictment was left undisturbed. However, so far as the copyright indictment sentences were concerned the four sentences which were ordered on that indictment to run concurrently of 12 months were reduced to six months concurrently in each case but remained consecutive to the sentences on the first indictment. There has been, and could be, no challenge to the correctness in principle of the learned judge making the sentences on the Social Security indictment run consecutively. The total sentences of two and a half years were thus reduced to a total sentence of two years' imprisonment.

Reviewed 18 August 2010