R v Sewell (John)

Date

12 March 2002

Legislation

Trade Marks Act 1994 s92

Keywords

criminal offences; sentencing; prosecution costs; indictment; crown court sentencing powers; liability for costs

Counsel

R. Burke-Gaffney for the Appellant

Solicitors:

unknown

Judge:

Rix LJ; Astill J, Richard Brown J.

Court:

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Reported:

[2002] EWCA Crim 664

Summary:

Sewell was committed to the Crown Court for sentencing on three offences of selling goods with a trade mark, three offences of applying a trade mark to goods, and one offence of offering goods for sale with a trade mark, all contrary to s92 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Sewell copied computer games and sold them making about £100 per month for 18 months. When arrested he was found in possession of more than 1,000 illegal copies and nearly 300 blank disks. He was a man of previous good character, married with children and in employment.

He was sentenced in the Crown Court to a fine of £2,000 in respect of all the offences and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,136. The costs order formed the subject of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. Sewell argued that the costs order was beyond his means to pay given that the fines and costs had been ordered to be paid at £300 per month. As the net income of the defendant and his wife was £2,080 per month it was held that the payment was not beyond his means.

Sewell also argued that he pleaded before the Magistrates court and that the prosecution who had chosen to go on indictment to the Crown Court and when sentenced there he received sentences within the powers of the Magistrates. Sewell submitted that the costs order should reflect his early guilty pleas and more importantly his willingness to be dealt with by the magistrates; he should not be penalised by the additional costs arising from being required to undertake a Crown Court trial.

Decision

The Court of Appeal held that this submission was correct and accordingly reduced the costs order from £2,136 to £1,000 being their estimate of the difference between a Crown Court trial and one before the Magistrates.